Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of Stare for Employment what is the current percentage of people who undertake training for work who subsequently find employment.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Thirty-seven per cent.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. From my inquiries locally with the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council, it appears that the figure for young people in my constituency is higher—but it is the percentage of people who actually complete training courses. Is it not time that the Government did more to ensure that young people and those in training for work schemes complete their courses? They would then have a far better chance of obtaining employment.

Mr. Hunt: I agree. I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the fact that in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area the rate is higher for those who have completed training for work—it has risen from 40 to 44 per cent.—and I congratulate all those involved in the TEC on having done such a good job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since December 1992.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 70,000 youngsters who take part in the modern apprenticeship scheme each year get the best and most relevant training for work and stand a high chance of securing good employment thereafter?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The target of increasing from about 12,000 to more than 70,000 the number of youngsters each year who achieve national vocational qualification level 3 will provide a substantial number of youngsters to fill the skills gap at craft, technician and supervisory level. That is important for our economy as we continue to try to be as competitive as possible.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Are not a number of training providers highlighting a growing trend, in that the proportion of the budget allocated to direct training by each TEC during recent years has been declining because the TECs have to fund a number of other schemes and, unfortunately, a number of them are spending money on administration? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at their budgets and ensure that a higher proportion of money goes to direct training rather than to other areas?

Mr. Hunt: I constantly seek to encourage a dialogue between the local Member of Parliament and the local TEC on what should be the local priorities. I do not want to prescribe, in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, more and more of the budgets. I want to find a way to remove some of the existing restrictions to give more flexibility locally. Although the hon. Gentleman did not say so, I know that he will be pleased that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 16 per cent. since December 1992.

Sex Equality Branch

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the priorities for the sex equality branch of his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The branch works to further the Department's key objective—to promote equality of opportunity for women in the workplace and beyond.

Mr. Bayley: What help can the Minister offer my constituent, Mrs. Susan Craven, who was sacked by her employer Securicor after working as a cleaner at Queen Anne's school in York for eight years? She was sacked in the 34th week of her pregnancy because she was admitted to hospital with complications arising from the pregnancy. She has been offered a new job on lower pay and with no holiday or sickness entitlement. When will the Government's sex equality branch take real action to provide equal employment rights for women?

Miss Widdecombe: My first advice to Mrs. Craven would be to see what representations her Member of Parliament could make. I have received no representations from the hon. Gentleman that would enable me properly to investigate the case. Instead of raising the matter in the most public and superficial way, perhaps he will write to me making a proper representation so that I can then make a proper investigation.

Mr. Marlow: If the Equal Opportunities Commission did not exist, no Conservative Government would conceivably set it up, so will my hon. Friend get rid of it? There is enough feminist claptrap around without the taxpayer having to pay for this nauseating, sexist institution.

Miss Widdecombe: I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We have no plans whatever to abolish the EOC; rather, we welcome a closer working relationship with it, as evidenced by the recent fair play initiative.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that one of the best things that the sex equality sector of her Department could


do is to consider the provision of universal child care so as to allow women with responsibilities for looking after children to go out and work if they chose?

Miss Widdecombe: Child care provision is already increasing in just about every category. There is increasing day nursery provision, and increasing provision by registered child minders; there is also the Government's initiative to provide £45 million, through the training and enterprise councils, for after-school child care. The Government are addressing child care issues. Why do we never hear Opposition Members welcome those increases?

Training

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the training for work programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: Training for work helped 294,000 people in England last year, which is over 20,000 more than originally planned.

Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment has fallen yet again in the city of Chester? It is 6 per cent. lower than it was a year ago, and 35 per cent. lower than it was seven years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view on the ground, and particularly that of CEWTEC—the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council—that the training for work programme has had an important effect on employment, especially in regard to those with disabilities and learning difficulties?

Mr. Hunt: I agree. The most important feature of training for work is that more than 85 per cent. of the client group are long-term unemployed. It is a very important programme, and has had a remarkable impact.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work done locally. We share the same training and enterprise council, which is coming up with imaginative and exciting new ideas. I also pay tribute to the Employment Service, which places a substantial number of unemployed people in work. I believe that in Chester nearly 7,000 unemployed people have been placed in work over the past 12 months. I commend all who work in the local jobcentres for that remarkably good result.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Secretary of State read a very interesting letter written by Mr. J. H. Pitman and published in the heavy dailies a few weeks ago concerning deficiencies in Britain's training programmes? Has the right hon. Gentleman asked to meet Mr. Pitman to discuss his concerns?

Mr. Hunt: No, I have not. Inquiries are taking place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked on several occasions for anyone with evidence to come forward. As for the letter, I shall study it again and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hertfordshire not only has unemployment fallen by 12.5 per cent. in the past year, but we have seen a tremendous result from the youth training guarantee? Delays have been reduced from 108 to just six in the past year. Does that not show that young people in Hertfordshire are being given a far better chance than ever before?

Mr. Hunt: I agree. We must continue to present young people in Hertfordshire and elsewhere with an increasing range of opportunities. The new modern apprenticeship scheme will be at the heart of the Government's strategy, and our recent announcement that the opportunity to take part in the scheme is to be extended beyond 16 and 17-year-olds to 18 and 19-year-olds is an important step forward.

Trade Unions

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning this year's re-registration of trade union membership; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): If the hon. Gentleman's question is about check-off, various representations have been received.

Mr. Barnes: My question is about registration and re-registration by trade unions and trade union members. Is it not time that some deregulation was introduced for our trade unions? Why do they have to jump through so many hoops in terms of their existence and organisation and in terms of being recognised and negotiating? And why is the Minister so vindictive towards railway signalmen, who all do a far more responsible job than he does?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is out of sorts with the times and his potential party leadership. Gone are the days when the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used to describe ballots as
a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol.48, c.210.]
It appears that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the movement in his own party. The Government spoke for the British people and the vast majority of trade unionists when we reformed the trade union movement and gave it back to its members.

Mr. Jenkin: Although unemployment has been falling in the North Colchester constituency, the registration of trade unionists has not been one of the factors which may have assisted that. However, employers are worried about the succession of European Court cases that have been lost by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Prime Minister that we need to look at the way in which the treaty of Rome is operating in this area with a view to reform in 1996?

Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend knows, I always agree with the Prime Minister, particularly on that point. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a link between falling unemployment in his constituency, as in every other, and our trade union reforms. It is because of our trade union reforms that we have been able to create a climate which has attracted 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Community into Britain, thus creating jobs.

Unemployment

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Hunt: Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell by 20,100 last month to 2.661 million.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged the success of training and enterprise councils, based as they are on local initiatives supported largely by local businesses. Is he aware that the North Yorkshire TEC, which was four years old last Friday, has already helped more than 12,000 individuals and firms, helping many of them to get back into work? Does not the success of that initiative give the lie to the Labour party's claim that the Government are doing nothing about training?

Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in commending his local training and enterprise council. I know of North Yorkshire TEC because my hon. Friend has just sent me a copy of its annual report which highlights a range of exciting and imaginative initiatives. Also, it is well known for its high-powered marketing approach and the way in which it extends the hand of help to so many in my hon. Friend's area. I commend the way in which he is working so closely with his local TEC.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that there is not the slightest reason for complacency on the part of the Government as regards unemployment? Far too many people, certainly in the west midlands but also elsewhere, suffer the appalling indignity of not being able to find work, with a substantial number having been unemployed for longer than 12 months. When will the Government recognise the injustice, indignity and humiliation suffered by people without employment and try to get the figure down to at least the level that existed when the Tories took office in 1979?

Mr. Hunt: Why does the hon. Gentleman not take pride in the fact that since December 1992 unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 12 per cent? I, too, take pride in the fact that over the past 18 months unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 300,000 while in the rest of Europe it has risen by more than 1.5 million. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our policies are working and that we have 70 per cent. of our working age population in work, which is one of the highest percentages anywhere in Europe?

Mr. Alan Howarth: Given my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to ensuring improved employment opportunities for disabled people, will he examine the difficulties that training for work procedures entail for small specialist providers of training for disabled people? In particular, will he consider the possibility of providing regional budgets for disability training with a view to reducing the time, effort and cost involved for trainers and for training and enterprise councils in the present fragmented system?

Mr. Hunt: I will continue to look at that problem as I want to ensure that all training and enterprise councils put equal opportunities and opportunities for disabled people at the top of their agenda. The Employment Service leads by good example: it sets a target on the number of disabled people to be placed in work, which is then divided among all the areas. In the next 12 months, the service aims to meet its national target of placing 55,000 disabled people in work and it is confident of achieving that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury's summary economic forecast, published today, states that while
unemployment has fallen…employment…has yet to show strong recovery?
In view of what he has been telling the House about the fall in unemployment, will he explain why not enough jobs are being created and whether the fall in unemployment does not have far more to do with disillusioned people dropping out of the market than with the creation of new jobs to take people back into work?

Mr. Hunt: The Opposition have argued that we should accept Labour Force Survey and International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment and employment. In the 12-month period between winter 1992 and winter 1993—the latest period for which statistics are available—unemployment fell by 180,000 and claimant unemployment figures fell by 187,000. In the same period, the number of jobs increased by 147,000. Those figures show that there has been a substantial increase in employment.

Mr. Congdon: Given the determined efforts of the European Commission to impose social costs on British industry, will my right hon. Friend continue to do everything that he can to resist any measures from Brussels that would increase unemployment in this country?

Mr. Hunt: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will continue our efforts to persuade our colleagues in the European Union that the only way to create jobs and to overcome the rising tide of unemployment elsewhere in Europe is to ensure that we have measures to remove burdens on employers, that we have a stable economic background—the strength of which in the United Kingdom is shown by figures released today—and that we have a much more flexible labour market. That is the only way to ensure that we create jobs.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Secretary of State explain why he refers to the level of unemployment while his Department refers to that of unemployed claimants? Why is a reduction in the number of claimants not reflected in the level of employment? Is it not just a fiddle by the Government? If they spent half as much time getting people back to work as they spend fiddling the figures, a lot more people would be back at work.

Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and that he has made such a swift recovery from a rather unfortunate accident. I refer again to the statistics that I just gave, as I am not too sure whether he could have been listening. I referred to the ILO measure of unemployment, which shows that in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available unemployment fell by 180,000 while at the same time employment rose by 147,000. Instead of casting stones at the figures and insults at the statisticians, the hon. Gentleman might reflect for a moment on my answer, which disproves his allegation.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in economically inactive adult males of working age since 1981.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: There has been a 60 per cent. increase.

Mr. Hain: Is that not significant and does it not give an indication of the hidden level of unemployment? The economically inactive working age totals—the Department's own totals—show that more than 2.5 million adult men of working age, some of whom admittedly are disabled or sick or perhaps have taken early retirement, are being pushed off the official register by the Government's manipulation although they want to work. Why do the Government not have the investment policies to give them an opportunity to work? In Wales, for example, one in every three men is unemployed, by any measure, if we take the official totals and the economically inactive totals. That represents a grotesque waste of talents and abilities.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be, for the hon. Gentleman's support for the reform of invalidity benefit. The hon. Gentleman will know that of that 60 per cent. increase in those who are economically inactive, two thirds of the people involved are registered as sick or long-term disabled. The biggest increase in recent years has been among students, as a result of the Government's determination to encourage more people to go into further and higher education. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to those figures.

Mr. Devlin: In areas such as mine, and in Wales, where older traditional industries were restructured in the early 1980s, the Government have taken several significant initiatives to try to bring down the level of male unemployment. Despite the difficulty in training older men to learn computing and similar skills, have not many of those measures in the north of England been strikingly effective?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The great benefit of the job seeker's allowance, when it is introduced, is that it will ensure that every measure is used to encourage people to get back into the labour market, which will be good for them as individuals and for the economy as a whole.

Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the German Government, German employers and the German trade unions on ensuring that there are 600,000 young apprentices in their engineering and manufacturing industries? What hope can he give the 16 to 18-year-olds in Rotherham, who have pitifully few apprenticeships and traineeships in industry—the lowest number in the European Community?

Mr. Forsyth: I am astonished that Opposition Members should praise the German Government in the House, yet not praise my right hon. Friend for his initiative on modern apprenticeships in this country. I am also astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not find time in his question to praise the fall in unemployment in his own constituency.

Working Hours

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the number of United Kingdom workers who would be affected by a statutory reduction in the working week to 35 hours.

Mr. David Hunt: The estimate is 14.75 million.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which could not demonstrate more clearly the

wisdom of the Government's robust rejection of the social chapter. Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to reject the current conditions of that chapter, knowing the catastrophic effect that they would have on the success of British companies? That fact seems to have escaped the unreformed socialist party, in the shape of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mr. Hunt: I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance, and add that when the 48-hour working time directive originally came from the Commission it was designed to compel people to work no more than 48 hours a week. Mr. Ford, a member of the European Parliament on the Opposition side—

Mr. Prescott: We are not the Opposition there.

Mr. Hunt: Mr. Ford, who is from the Labour party, said that he would like to see—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East calm down for a moment and recognise that Mr. Ford has argued that instead of a 48-hour week there should be a 35-hour week right across the European Union? [Interruption.] I hear several voices approving that idea. That would mean telling 14.75 million people in the United Kingdom that they would no longer be allowed to work the hours that they chose. It would also impose costs of £20,000 million on industry, as well as a compulsory pay cut of £20,000 million.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State, therefore, tell us why 68 per cent. of those at work in the United Kingdom are forced to work the longest working week in Europe to earn a decent living wage? Those are not the hours that they want to work; they can earn a decent wage only in that way. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that since 1979, British income per head has fallen from the European average to below the European average? Will he remind us which party has been in government since 1979?

Mr. Hunt: I have two points in answer to that three-pronged question. First, in the United Kingdom, the average working week is just less than the average working week in the European Union. Secondly, let us look at take-home pay. I have here the latest table for European countries, which I am very willing to place in the Library, which shows annual take-home pay in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in 1991. For a single person, take-home pay in the United Kingdom was the second highest in the whole of the European Union.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the TEC movement; and what matters were discussed.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet TEC representatives to discuss a wide range of topics.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a successful visit on 6 June to Somerset training and enterprise council. She may also be aware that Somerset TEC recently commissioned a survey which showed that 79 per cent. of all recently started-up businesses were still flourishing 18 months later. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility


of giving a high priority to bids under the single regeneration budget? They are extremely important to those who seek start-up funding.

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of Somerset TEC. I confirm that the survey showing that 79 per cent. of new businesses were still trading was extremely encouraging and correct. The business start-up scheme is now part of the single regeneration budget. All bids for the regeneration fund, which is now included in that budget, will be most seriously considered. It is worth recording that 650,000 business start-ups were successfully implemented in the past year.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: When the Secretary of State arid the Minister met the TECs, did they discuss the London School of Economics report which showed that because of Government underfunding, the TECs were locked into delivering low-quality training simply for the unemployed? Does the Minister agree that if we are to begin to harness the potential of the nation's labour force and to enhance skill levels, we shall need considerably more than a change of direction by the Government. We shall need a change of Government.

Miss Widdecombe: We discussed not merely the LSE report, but far more up-to-date findings which show that the quality of TEC training is steadily improving. It is worth recording that there have been 165,000 youth training or credit starts since August, 650,000 business start-ups and 272,000 training for work a year. When we measure outcomes in terms of national vocational qualification level 3, which I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can call a derisory qualification, we find that the TECs are delivering training in very much the way that we hoped and that they are getting better at it all the time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate his local TEC on its performance.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the standards that the Department uses to measure the effectiveness of the TECs are adequate? Is she also satisfied that the performance of the best TECs is published regularly to enable TECs that are not so effective to catch up?

Miss Widdecombe: The measurements that we use measure skills gained, qualifications gained, successful outcomes and those in employment at the end of training. We believe that those measures are the best as they successfully establish what the outcome of training has been. We are satisfied that they are correct and we are satisfied that there is increasing performance by the TECs. Having published the league tables of TECs, which give comparative performance, we believe that the best practices will now be disseminated and that TECs that have poorer performances will be encouraged to improve.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the number of people who are counted twice or thrice in the employment totals.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Three per cent. of the employed work force have two or more jobs.

Mr. Flynn: Was not it unfair of Mr. Alan Clark in his diaries to say that the Department of Employment did nothing but concoct useless schemes to con the unemployed off the register, ignoring entirely the imaginative, creative energetic work that takes place in the Department every month to fiddle the employment and unemployment figures? Should not the Department's headquarters be recognised for what it is; the country's biggest, most shameless, most disreputable massage parlour?

Mr. Forsyth: I am responsible for many difficult things, but, fortunately, I am not responsible for Mr. Alan Clark's diaries.

Sir Donald Thompson: Has my hon. Friend any idea of the number of people who are registered unemployed or are registered for benefit who are working?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are proposing to introduce the new job seeker's allowance, which will help to ensure that people are targeted and that we give them the help and support that they need to get back into employment. It is interesting that a number of those measures in the past have resulted in people leaving the register entirely. It is wholly proper that our resources should be concentrated on minimising the number of people who face unemployment and on helping those who face unemployment back into work.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister explain why the Department's own statisticians have agreed that the adjustment to the unemployment criteria figures have reduced the claimants by at least 500,000 and that the double counting for the employment figures has increased them? Is that a pure coincidence or, by political design, just one, big, major fiddle?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. I cannot think why we have Question Time after Question Time when he makes the same points about the figures. Presumably, it is because he is not able to give the House any answers as to how he would deliver the full employment which he boasts he and his party can achieve.

Redundant Service Personnel

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council to discuss the reemployment of redundant service personnel.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit Wiltshire training and enterprise council. However, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet TEC representatives when he visits the Royal British Legion training centre at Tidworth next month.

Mr. Coombs: I am sure that if my hon. Friend or, indeed, if my right hon. Friend were able to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council, they would be made well aware of the excellent job prospects which we now in have in northern Wiltshire. They would also be told of the concern over the future of the business start-up scheme. May I draw, again, to the attention of the House the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson)? There is considerable concern


about future funding prospects under that scheme, especially for the ex-service men, who will be looking for work in the Wiltshire area in the near future. Is there anything more that my hon. Friend can say to give comfort to the TEC and to those potential beneficiaries of the start-up scheme?

Miss Widdecombe: At the kind invitation of my hon. Friend, I shall be delighted to visit Wiltshire TEC as soon as it is possible to do so. Meanwhile, may I tell him that, within three months of being made redundant, 80 per cent of ex-service personnel are employed or otherwise settled according to their own requirements. Indeed, that is given a high priority. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the help given to redundant service personnel by my Department. I can assure him that that will continue. In response to the question about the business start-up scheme, I can only reassure my hon. Friend that funds have been made available in the single regeneration budget and that all bids will be considered on their merit.

Mr. Janner: When the Minister is considering the re-employment of service personnel, whether at the Wiltshire TEC or anywhere else, does she put that into the overall structure? Has she or the Secretary of State discussed the sacking and redundancies among service personnel with the Secretary of State for Defence? If so, how many service personnel has the Secretary of State for Defence said are likely to be made redundant in the next six months?

Miss Widdecombe: There is constant contact between my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Defence. These matters are regularly discussed.

Labour Statistics

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Yorkshire and Humberside have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A total of 132,200 people have been placed in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside by the Employment Service. That is 16.7 per cent. more than in the previous year.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the investment in jobs in Batley and Spen by Thomas' of Europe, which was again recruiting for its work force, and the £1.5 million investment by Thomas Carr in new spinning machinery for carpet yarn, which will safeguard jobs and, we hope, produce more in the near future?

Mr. Forsyth: I am aware of that good news. I am not surprised that Batley and Spen has benefited from inward investment and growth in employment, and especially from having such an able Member of Parliament who never ceases to take the opportunity to bang the drum for their benefit and to support jobs in her constituency.

Mr. Barron: Between 1981 and 1991, Yorkshire and Humberside lost more than 110,000 full-time jobs. They have been replaced by 123,000 part-time jobs—a full-time job loss equivalent of somewhere in the region of 62,000 jobs. Are the Government proud of that record?

Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely proud of the Government's record in encouraging the creation of part-time jobs. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, he will find himself in trouble with the feminist wing in his party because two thirds of part-time jobs are held by people who want part-time jobs, not people who cannot find full-time jobs. Many of them are women who are able to get back into work while maintaining their family responsibilities. That is the result of the Government taking on the vested interests for which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

Careers Service

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the careers service.

Miss Widdecombe: A new framework for providing careers services is now in place which should see a more flexible, effective and higher quality careers service, giving greater value for money for clients and the taxpayer alike.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that the range of careers available to young people nowadays is much wider than ever before. In what ways is the careers service ensuring that our young people have a full grasp of that wide range of opportunities?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right: there are more opportunities for young people than ever before. They will be enhanced yet again in September when modern apprenticeship prototypes become available in a whole range of new opportunities. Government investment in the careers service has resulted in more impartial, more frequent and better quality advice. As the second round of the pathfinders exercise is completed, those good effects will spread. Not even Labour Members can resist congratulating the Government on modern apprenticeships, accelerated apprenticeships, the new careers guidance announced in the White Paper—

Madam Speaker: Order. The answer is far too long. I have other hon. Members to call.

Mr. Hardy: While one has great sympathy with, and appreciates the work of, the careers service, can the Minister tell the House whether the advice of the careers service is to ensure that young people seeking assistance are warned that many of the jobs that they will be persuaded to take will provide salaries or wages of £2.20 an hour, as offered to some of my adult constituents, and would therefore allow the Minister to describe them as economically active? Would the Minister also describe them as economically and socially deprived?

Miss Widdecombe: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no inaccurate advice is given by the careers service.

Training Credits

Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have taken up training credits; and what plans he has to extend the scheme.

Mr. David Hunt: More than 100,000 young people in England have started using youth credits and we intend to extend them throughout England next year.

Mr. Trend: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the volume and variety of training experience for our young people has increased through training credits, and that modern apprenticeships should further increase the scope of training opportunities for our young people?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only do we have one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in the European Union—or well below the European Union average. In the new modern apprenticeship scheme, we now have some exciting new opportunities for all 16, 17 and, subsequently, 18 and 19-year-olds to start work-based training in an apprenticeship mode which I believe will be an example to the rest of Europe.

Job Seeker's Allowance

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the proposed job seeker's allowance on the efficiency of the labour market.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The job seeker's allowance will encourage wider and more effective job search.

Mr. Booth: Does the job seeker's allowance encourage imaginative use of long-term unemployment? Does it also remotivate people who have lost their motivation through consistent rejection? Is it one more imaginative and exciting scheme from a party which is imaginative and exciting?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. The introduction of the job seeker's allowance will mean that those people who have been unemployed for a long time will be given the help and support that they are entitled to expect to get them back into work and that those people who are resting on unemployment benefit will find themselves being asked to take more active steps to find work. That will be good for them and good for the economy as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for injecting a little ray of sunshine so early in today's proceedings by drawing his attention to the economic forecast published this morning by the Treasury, which shows prospects of steady growth coupled with low inflation? Does he agree that that highlights the success of our economic policies and further shows that the policies of the Labour party, with their limitless public spending, would damage the economy, damage jobs and damage our businesses?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to be cheerful about the forecast this morning. Growth is higher and inflation is lower. We now have a clear chance of sustainable growth with low inflation for the period ahead.

That is extremely good news for the British economy. It is a chance that lies ahead of us and we have no intention of letting it slip.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in Barcelona yesterday—that in Spain family ties are stronger and there is a greater spirit of local community than in Britain?

The Prime Minister: I do not have the same knowledge of Spain as my right hon. Friend has, but I can say that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech in Spain yesterday—an excellent and serious speech and one of a series that have been made by my right hon. Friends, addressing problems of concern to everyone in this country.

Mrs. Beckett: As the Prime Minister has in effect endorsed the Chief Secretary's speech, I must presume that he agrees. After 15 years of Conservative Government, if family life in Britain is undermined, why does the Prime Minister think that that is the case?

The Prime Minister: All my right hon. Friends are concerned about the role of the family and how to maintain it. For us, family values and family life are central not only to our national life but to the existence of each and every person in this country. What my right hon. Friend has made clear and is self-evidently the case—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House.

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend has made clear—I think that this is the kind of matter that we ought to be able to discuss without the sort of interpretation that the right hon. Lady puts on it—is that there are many areas of family life which are not the concern of Government and in which the Government are not the best arbiter. We have a responsibility for providing some vital services such as education, health and others, but the reality is that the essence of family life lies within the family itself. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.

Mrs. Beckett: It seems to me that the Prime Minister has yet again endorsed what the Chief Secretary said. I shall put to him for the second time what I put to him a moment ago. Why does he feel that family life and the spirit of community in Britain have been undermined in the 15 years his Government have been in power? I remind him of what he said in Los Angeles last year. He said:
We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else to blame for anything else that has gone wrong.
Is not that the most truthful thing that he has said in years?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Lady has perhaps not read my right hon. Friend's speech in full. If she had—

Mrs. Beckett: indicated assent.

The Prime Minister: Well, I would be surprised if she had read it, but, if -she says she has, she clearly did not understand it.
If she had read it, she would no doubt have seen the rest of my right hon. Friend's speech. He made an excellent case for free trade, deregulation and economic policies which encourage innovation and self-respect. He made the


point clearly that only if we do that can we sustain the genuine services necessary to sustain the family and those in genuine need.
I note the right hon. Lady's strong support for the welfare state. Perhaps she will set out the areas that she would seek to improve, and how she would propose to finance that improvement.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty that there will be in justifying an increase in Britain's contribution to the European Community budget at a time when our defence budget is being drastically pruned. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the existing difficulties in explaining why soldiers, sailors and airmen are being made redundant at the same time as people working in the black economy continue to live at the expense of the taxpayers, drawing benefits to which they are neither entitled nor have earned?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern to stamp out social security fraud, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has stepped up the fight against it. We are looking, for example, at the possibility of introducing personalised cards as one of the methods of ensuring that we minimise and, I hope, eradicate social security fraud against the taxpayer.
As far as the first half of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, he will no doubt be aware of the agreement that I reached in Edinburgh on the future financing of the Community, which set clear and rigorous limits, not for the traditional five years of an agreement but for seven years of an agreement, and at a lower rate of increase than in the past. It also safeguarded the British rebate which was at some risk from our European partners. That was money which we had to fight hard to keep. I might add that, had we not had a veto, we might not have been able to keep that money.

Mr. Ashdown: Given the present economic situation, is the Prime Minister opposed to further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England?

The Prime Minister: I have made my view clear that I am not at this moment in favour of further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England.

Sir Cranley Onslow: If the signalmen's strike is not settled soon, will my right hon. Friend consider making a ministerial broadcast on the subject—however much it might embarrass the Opposition to find someone willing to accept the right of reply?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has finally broken cover on the subject of the strike, even though the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been notably silent. The hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the strike, and so do 40 of his Back-Bench colleagues. It will be interesting to see whether any of the leadership contenders do the same. After all, 40 votes are 40 votes.

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoon: Is the Prime Minister reminded of the career of Frederick Augustus of York, who lost his job as commander in chief following a disastrous European campaign? Is not the Prime Minister's problem that he is neither up with those who make and shape European policy, and is too often down with those who would have Britain leave the European Union? Is not it the case that the Government's policy, like the grand old Duke of York, staggers from one crisis to the next and fails to protect Britain's longer-term interests?

The Prime Minister: I think that, from a party that would abandon the veto, talk of protecting Britain's long-term interests will sound pretty hollow to most people in this country. The Opposition's European policy is to find out what the others want and then agree with it so that they can claim not to be in a minority. I have been able to discover not one area of originality in their European policy. We have set out and will continue to set out our own vision of how Europe should develop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be surprised at the echo, right across Europe, of the nature of the European Community which we wish to develop.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement that parental choice will be extended by allowing the expansion of popular schools and grammar schools? Is he further aware that, despite their blurred rhetoric, the Opposition are still committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, hate grammar schools, and would deny parents the choice to which they are entitled?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition dislike choice of almost any sort—they have a difficult choice to make in the next few weeks. Yesterday's announcement is excellent news for parents, giving them more choice and letting good schools grow. I regret the fact that the Opposition have such a negative education policy—the abolition of grant-maintained schools; the abolition of training and enterprise councils; the abolition of the assisted places scheme; the abolition of teacher training reform; and the abolition of performance tables. They would abolish everything that would provide more information for parents and a better education for children. However much they may dislike it, they should remember how they cut education budgets when they were in Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) came into Government because her predecessor declined to make cuts. She came into Government to cut.

Dr. Godman: The Prime Minister knows of the derailment of a train in Greenock on Saturday night. The driver—a young man from Glasgow—and a young lad from Greenock were killed instantly. They were murdered by murderous individuals who placed concrete slabs on the line. Since then, two copycat incidents have taken place in Cumbernauld and Duddingston, fortunately with no loss of


life. Will the Prime Minister and his Transport Ministers assure the House today that Railtrack will do everything in its power to eliminate such murderous behaviour? Will they assure us that the safety and school liaison units will not be reduced, as some people fear, but given an enhanced educational role to reduce, if not eliminate, such terrible acts against train crews and passengers?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the family of the driver, Mr. McKee, and to Mr. Nicol, the passenger, who were so tragically killed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears to be an act of mindless vandalism that has resulted in the death of two entirely innocent people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Strathclyde police are conducting an inquiry into the incident and treating it as murder. In addition, Railtrack and British Rail are conducting a joint investigation. The Health and Safety Executive inspector has already visited the site and the railway inspectorate is working alongside in the investigation. We will do all that we can to eliminate the possibility of such incidents in future and bring to book those responsible for this one.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as the chattering classes start

to talk up the possibility of a future Labour Government, trade union militants start to rear their ugly heads? Does not the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strike provide a timely reminder of what has always happened under Labour Governments and what would happen under a future Labour Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the House really wants to know is where Bambi stands on the rail strike?

Hon. Members: Where is he?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to take responsibility for the opinion of many people, but not for that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He must answer for himself, when and if he returns to the House. [Interruption.] I think that most people will have noticed that the contenders for the leadership of the Labour party, although addressing every conference that presents itself up and down the country, will not be addressing the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conference. One of them is sponsored by it. They seem happy to take its money, but unwilling to address it.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The Prime Minister is very keen to express his views on choice, and especially on market testing. Will he consider market testing his Government by having an election?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, in 1996 or 1997—and we shall win it.

Tampons (Safety)

Ms Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will Members leaving please do so very quietly and quickly? We have business to conduct. Please leave very quietly. [Interruption.] Order. There is a lady attempting to address the House.

Ms Primarolo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes.
Toxic shock syndrome was defined by doctors in the USA in 1980 as a severe infection of the blood, identified by a collection of symptoms, including sudden high temperature, vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches, confusion and low blood pressure. Without treatment, the infection can rapidly cause fatal respiratory and kidney failure. Toxic shock syndrome strikes men, women and children.
The infection is caused by the production of toxins by common bacteria that are present on all of us. The aspect that has attracted the most attention is the fact that, in half the cases, young women have been struck by toxic shock syndrome who have been using tampons.
The bacteria are carried by 35 to 50 per cent. of adults. They are harmless, move freely over the body frequently and are not connected with how often we wash ourselves. However, when suitable conditions arise, the bacteria have the ability to produce toxins or poisons which enter the bloodstream and circulate around the body, attacking the vital organs.
The presence of the toxins in the blood stimulates the body to make antitoxins, which have the power to neutralise the poison, but in young people that immunity may not have had the opportunity to develop, so the body is overwhelmed. Most tampon-related TSS infections occur in the age group 15 to 25, and most TSS infections from wounds and bites occur in men and children.
The bacteria do not always produce toxins during menstruation, but when they do, it is almost always associated with tampon use. The exact link between the tampon and the toxin is not known. There is no simple cause and effect; if there were, prevention could be specific and easy. Tampons have not been found to cause TSS—any one of a combination of symptoms could trigger the toxin production, but the link with tampons appears to be clear.
There are more suggested links, but what is known is that all types and brands of tampons have been linked with TSS. A particularly high absorbency tampon called "Rely" was linked to an upsurge in TSS deaths in the United States of America in 1980. The brand was withdrawn from the market, and has never been on sale in the United Kingdom, because of the recognised links.
There is currently no way of testing whether one is immune to the toxins. There is no way of carrying out checks on the levels of bacteria and their likely consequences. It is possible to avoid that form of TSS by not using tampons, but many millions of women wish to use them. My Bill seeks to make clear the precautions that

women should take to minimise the risk. It calls on the Government to take specific steps with the manufacturers to make the situation clear to women.
Three young women have died from tampon-related TSS in the past seven months. It is a rare disease, but that is no reason not to act. In Bristol earlier this year, a young woman of 32, with two small children, died tragically from TSS. Her mother wrote to me to support my Bill. She said that her daughter felt unwell on Friday, was vomiting and had a high temperature on Saturday, and had dramatically low blood pressure on Sunday. She died on Monday, after six cardiac arrests, and nobody made the connection between her illness and TSS.
Toxic shock syndrome is treatable with antibiotics, as long as it is identified early enough. Scores of women who have survived the illness and suffered the results of severe blood infection are receiving counselling. Many women have had their legs, toes or fingers amputated as a result of the disease. But the Department of Health refuses to send out leaflets to doctors, on the grounds that the illness is not a high enough priority.
Many general practitioners fail to recognise the illness, perhaps understandably, because of its rareness. Two doctors took no notice of Jane Grant when she suggested that the tampon that she was wearing might have something to do with her feeling unwell. She spent 10 days fighting for her life after her symptoms were wrongly diagnosed. That is simply not acceptable.
At present, tampon packets carry voluntary warnings, but they are so tiny that many people miss them. We need to ensure that the symptoms are well known, that women are provided with the necessary health warnings, and that the Government give priority to researching the disease.
A father who wrote to me about the death of his 15-year-old daughter in 1989 from TSS, connected with the use of tampons, sums up the situation perfectly:
We have no complaint about those who attended our daughter. All of those who treated her clearly wanted her to survive as much as we did. No apparent stone was left unturned. She died however because a few well-established and simple facts about TSS were not widely known to any of us who were in a position to influence her treatment in those crucial early hours of her illness.
Even the manufacturing industry understands the difficulty. My Bill seeks clear prominent warnings on packaging, an alert card explaining what the symptoms are and what one should do, research and information to doctors, and to ensure that the Department of Health makes TSS a notifiable disease so that we can start collecting the information truly to understand what the disease is, why it strikes women and how we can eradicate it.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am rising to oppose the Bill, although it seems an eminently attractive proposition. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) has highlighted an important issue, but it needs to be represented accurately. I am not associated with the tampon industry in any way, other than having discussed the matter with its representatives.
It is important that the items under discussion, which have improved the lives of so many women, should not be misrepresented, and that the hon. Lady's actions should not be allowed to scare women unnecessarily throughout the country.
In the detail of her notice of motion, the hon. Lady has called for Government regulations to make provision for


certain warnings on packaging and advertisements. I do not believe that any such legislation is required. The tampon industry has already made adequate provision for warnings about toxic shock syndrome on its packaging. Indeed, as early as 1980, warnings appeared on instruction leaflets inside the boxes and since the beginning of 1993 on the outside. They are quite clear. I shall read the warning:
Attention—tampons are associated with toxic shock syndrome. TSS is a rare but serious disease that may cause death. Read and save the enclosed information".
I cannot understand how the hon. Lady believes that placing warnings on advertisements, presumably even television advertisements, can contribute to health understanding.
Toxic shock syndrome, its symptoms and risk reduction factors, comprise a complex condition believed to be better dealt with in a more educational environment. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has seen the Tambrands Education Service literature or the Marion Cooper Advisory Service literature, which cover TSS, not in isolation, but in relation to the whole picture of an individual's health, including details on TSS.
Inaccurate information and misleading statistics have been circulated on TSS, and the Association of Sanitary Protection Manufacturers, which represents the majority of United Kingdom manufacturers of sanitary protection products, has compiled a detailed fact sheet on the known and established facts, which is widely circulated to GPs, among others. As GPs rarely see the condition, the ASPM has made provision to notify the clinical definition, arid has recommended questions for GPs to ask patients to reduce the chance of misdiagnosis.
TSS is a very rare illness, and, as the hon. Lady said, can be contracted by men, children and women—both menstrual and non-menstrual. There were only 18 confirmed or probable cases in 1992 and 16 in 1993, out of a total population of 58 million, and of those cases five, sadly, resulted in death. The Public Health Laboratory Service indicates that, of those, one or two deaths are associated with tampon use.
The Medical Research Council is not supporting any specific research into TSS, but rather basic research into staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria which causes TSS. The bug lives quite harmlessly in more than 35 per cent. of the population, but can be triggered in a minute number of cases into producing toxins. I agree with the hon. Lady that research into this organism and its effects is desirable and should be encouraged, as it affects men and children as well as women, but highlighting its relationship to tampons alone could distort the research, which needs to be more widely based.
I want to get the matter into perspective. A report in The Guardian on 21 June stated that more than 100 people a year die of paracetamol-linked kidney failure, and between 630 and 676 women die annually in the United Kingdom as a result of complications in pregnancy and childbirth, so

the risk is far greater in these cases than the one in 15 million chance of woman contracting TSS related to tampon use and subsequently dying.
This Bill is a regulation too far. As the hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party, British industry should be aware that, based on her proposal, it can expect even more regulation were there to be a Labour Government.
I felt very sad, as we all did, for the families who have had someone die from possible TSS that could be tampon-related. I do not want in any way to minimise their loss. However, I must say that the tampon industry takes its responsibilities very seriously, and works to a voluntary code of practice that was developed with the Department of Trade and Industry.
Tampons have made a real and positive contribution to the way in which women can live their lives. More than 5,000 people are employed in the industry, including union members of USDAW, TGWU and AEU. The Bill could not only threaten their jobs but send the wrong message to women who choose to use tampons. While I do not for one minute underestimate a very rare, unpleasant and sometimes deadly condition, it is necessary for someone to underline the safety of the product and to set at rest the minds of millions of women who use it with no adverse effects. I am sure that some of those women are in the Chamber right now.
I do not want to make this a party political matter, so I shall not press it to a vote. However, it is important that excessive intervention such as is envisaged in the Bill should be highlighted, and that unnecessary scaremongering by the Opposition should not go unchallenged on such an important health issue for women.
Like the hon. Lady, I want more research into TSS for the sake of women and also for men and children, but not at the expense of the peace of mind of women throughout the country who use or wish to use tampons.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Ian McCartney and Dr. Lewis Moonie.

TAMPONS (SAFETY)

Ms Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At your convenience, could you reflect and rule on the entirely new practice of hon. Members speaking against a ten-minute Bill and then not pressing the matter to a vote? As I understand it, it is a new practice and an abuse of House of Commons procedure.

Madam Speaker: It is not at all new—it is well established, and is included in "Erskine May". Any Member seeking to oppose such a Bill is free to do so. Of course, that hon. Member must raise his or her voice in opposition, but the matter does not necessarily need to proceed to a Division. That is for me to determine, depending on the voices that I hear.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have made a ruling. The matter is covered in "Erskine May". It is there for hon. Members to look at.

Mrs. Currie: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It might be worth reminding hon. Members, especially women Members, that, if they want to introduce Bills that need the support of women on both sides of the House, they might invite some to become sponsors.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will have no argument about whether women Members are invited to sponsor Bills. I take it that the hon. Lady's point of order does not relate to that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When a 10-minute Bill is to be opposed, is it not the convention for the hon. Member opposing it to give notice to the hon. Member presenting it? Is that not an elementary courtesy?

Madam Speaker: No, that is not the case. The hon. Member opposing the Bill must listen to what is said by the promoter before he or she can decide whether to oppose it.

Coal Industry Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 12

RESTRUCTURING SCHEMES IN RELATION TO PROPERTY ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 12, line 46, leave out from first ("that") to end of line 47 and insert—

("(i) that person consented to the provisions of the Scheme so far as they relate to him;
(ii) no persons to whom obligations are owed, whether in respect of contamination or other liabilities arising out of the occupation of any property used in connection with coal-mining operations by the Corporation or its predecessors, is likely to sustain loss as a consequence of the Scheme.")

Mr. Stewart Bell: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at the end to add
'(iii) any such liabilities, including environmental liabilities, arise in relation to coal mines and abandoned coal mines, in which case those liabilities shall be transferred to the Authority on the restructuring date.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, we may consider the Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1: in page 13, line 7, at end insert—
'(5A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under this section to make a restructuring scheme in accordance with which any person other than—

(a) a person mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above, or
(b) a body of whom all the members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown,

is to become subject to any liabilities, to have regard to the fact that it would not be appropriate for the scheme to provide for the transfer of any of those liabilities to any person except where it is reasonable to believe that that person is a person who will be able to finance their discharge.'.

Mr. Bell: Opposition amendment (b) to the Lords amendment simply seeks to square assurances given by Ministers many times, but not yet acted on. It seeks a full transfer of liabilities from British Coal to the Coal Authority on the restructuring date.
We are all aware that coal mining is not like any other business. We are all aware that it leaves behind long-term liabilities; we are all aware of its tremendous impact on the physical environment—subsidence, polluted water and contaminated land—and know that those effects can persist for decades.
We are also aware that, in the past, British Coal has taken action to control, prevent or even remedy that legacy; but what will happen when British Coal ceases to exist? Where will the responsibility lie? Will not the coalfield communities that will exist long after the pits have gone suffer unduly unless the liabilities are dealt with by another responsible body, such as the Coal Authority referred to in the Bill?
The amendment seeks, in a limited but important way, to ensure that communities are fully protected from circumstances in which environmental damage is allowed to continue because the legally responsible party is unable to pay for the necessary remedial work.
We all know of the work that has been done up and down the country—especially in County Durham—to rid the county of dereliction from its coal-mining and industrial past. It could be said—as Durham county council


says—that that has been an outstanding achievement by a partnership between central and local government going back 25 years.
As a consequence of that partnership, residents and businesses have been able to pick themselves up and involve themselves in new types of investment—sometimes in overseas investment. Our amendment will ensure that the upward curve of investment and improved environment in the coal communities will continue, by providing for environmental liabilities to be transferred to the Coal Authority.
What we seek would be in line with the Minister's own commitment in a letter to the leader of Durham county council, dated 8 November 1993, to establishing a long-term framework to deal with water pollution from coal mines in the context of coal privatisation. The amendment would clarify that framework in respect of pollution related to abandoned mines of all kinds.
We know—this relates to the Government's amendment—that none of the transfer schemes will work in Durham, because there is no deep mining left there. There will be no private buyers to take on themselves the obligations laid down in that amendment. Who, then, will be responsible? Will it be the county council, the National Rivers Authority, some other Government Department or the appropriate river purification board? Will there be another review? The Department of Trade and Industry moves the problem from one pair of hands to another, not even stopping to wash them, as did Pontius Pilate.
I am aware of the statements made in the other place by Lord Strathclyde on 26 April this year, when he sought to assuage the anxieties of his colleagues. He recognised the concerns that arose
about the threat of water pollution from coal mines and about the effects of privatisation.
I doubt whether he reassured many of his noble Friends. There is no legislative commitment to meet the residual liability for British Coal's past actions. There is no legal obligation upon British Coal to continue to pump and there will be no private buyers.
He recognised that
continued pumping is required to prevent a serious pollution incident; or at all events, to give an assurance that such an incident can be avoided.
He was certain that there must be a commitment to maintain pumping for as long as it was needed in order to prevent the risk of serious pollution. Again, we have no legislative commitment. Those who sat on the Committee considering the Bill asked for such commitments repeatedly, but we were never given them.
According to Lord Strathclyde, we were soon into the area of spending—limited resources, Exchequer restraints and the hand of the Treasury over-arching across the Bill, as it does so many other measures.
We have all read the speech made in Spain by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It seems that, if we want to know what the Government are thinking, we must look at speeches made as far away from these shores as possible. That is what the Chief Secretary did. He told the Spaniards that markets should be controlling Governments.
Here at home, there will be no resources, or at least only limited resources, to decide whether pumping continues in County Durham and elsewhere. The noble Lord Strathclyde said:

noble lords on all sides will recognise that its resources will be necessarily limited.
He wanted to assure the other place that the Coal Authority would
in due course have a specific budget earmarked for these purposes".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541–42.]
We have a liability that pumping will continue, contingent upon there being resources. Again, we have no legislative commitment, we have nothing in writing, nothing in the Bill and nothing on the statute book.
I know that the noble Lord Strathclyde is not in the second-hand car business. However, I have read how one of the candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour party buys himself a new car every 18 months and drives 40,000 miles in a few weeks. I am sure that he would not buy such a car from the noble Lord Strathclyde.
If we would not buy a car from him, why should we believe anything that he or the Government say when it is not written down on the statute book? Why should those who may have to live with the consequences of water pollution believe them? Why should the people of Durham believe them? Why should the people of other coalfield communities where there are no longer deep mines believe them?

Dr. Kim Howells: If anybody doubts my hon. Friend's description about what is going to happen in Durham, I invite them to visit my constituency to see the filth that is pouring out of abandoned mines now. Pumping has already ceased in that area. Ferrous oxides are staining the rivers and killing all the life. Incidentally, those rivers have been cleaned up through the heroic efforts of local authorities.

Mr. Bell: The Government's amendment misses the point completely, and would not deal with the situation described by my hon. Friend and others. Their amendment is based on the premise that there will be a licence, and that there will be a Coal Authority. It does not take into account what happens when there is no longer extraction and the deep mines no longer exist. When the Coal Authority is gone, everything is gone.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that there has always been concern about the safety and pollution of beaches? When there are no pits left in coalfields such as south Wales, Durham, Derbyshire, and so on, there will be a problem of river pollution that could be 10 times worse than the problem with the beaches. The National Rivers Authority found nothing in the River Doe Lea, because it never looked for anything until the Coalite business occurred and there was dioxin contamination.
It is conceivable that the rivers will be heavily polluted, particularly when the mines are closed. Nobody is responsible for them. The NRA will go only if there is a serious complaint, as was the case with Coalite. Unless something is put into the Bill, we will face a problem with all the rivers and streams in coalfield areas such as that which arose with the beaches before the European directive.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose vast knowledge of the coal industry goes back many years, and whose interventions in the House have helped the Opposition but have irritated Conservative Members.

Mr. John Cummings: I represent the former coal-mining area of Durham, whose beaches have gradually become despoiled in the past 50 years and are now perhaps the worst in the United Kingdom. The pit at Londonderry and the Joicey Coal Company are no longer with us. The National Coal Board became British Coal, which will have gone by the end of the year and will be replaced by some nondescript shapeless body called the Coal Authority, which will be devoid of form and financial substance when it carries out its works.
Despoiled water is percolating into the grounds of Auckland castle, the palace of the Bishop of Durham. The problem has been increasing over a number of years. No one appears to want to take responsibility for dealing with it. I agree that the Minister is an honourable gentlemen, but I doubt whether he will still be in his job to honour assurances that were given in Committee. We want our proposals to be included in an Act of Parliament to give us some protection.

4 pm

Mr. Bell: I testify to the despoliation of the beaches near Horden colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). As a child, I spent my holidays walking along those beaches; seeing coal on the beach is not a sight that I will forget.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) links with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. In the past few years, the Government and local government have tried to rectify the environmental damage. In the House, in Committee or in the other place, we have heard bland statements that somehow, someone, somewhere will deal with pollution. When one reads the fine print of the Bill, one does not find a definitive promise, commitment or assurance that someone, somewhere will be specifically liable to continue the work of cleaning up the environment.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The problem exists not only in coalfields in England and Wales but in Scotland. We are still tackling problems that arose before nationalisation. I want to add my weight to the appeal to the Government to include concrete provisions in the Bill. They should not do a Pontius Pilate. I know that the Minister is not listening. I hope that my hon. Friend will insist that Scotland is covered and that the amendment will be written in tablets of stone rather than left to the discretion of some unknown person.

Mr. Bell: We are trying, if not to get commitments in tablets of stone, then to get them on the statute book, but vague promises and statements have been made on the subject. In his wind-up speech, the noble Lord Strathclyde said in the other place:
Civil liabilities of the corporation will stay with the corporation on the restructuring date. When the corporation is ultimately wound up, those liabilities will be transferred elsewhere in the public sector before British Coal is dissolved. British Coal cannot be left with liabilities when it is wound up. We must find a home for those liabilities and we shall do so under the restructuring scheme.
That will not be done under the Bill, The Government have not given commitments to the House, to the other place or to coalfield communities, which are looking to hon. Members to ensure that such commitments are written, if not in tablets of stone, then in the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde continued:

By becoming the freehold owner of coal and coal mines, the authority will automatically acquire the responsibilities, including environmental liabilities, running with that ownership, which it will pass on to mine operators under the terms of the lease in respect of areas which it licenses for coal mining."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 208.] That misses completely the point about the deep mines that no longer exist, and from which coal is no longer extracted, but where mine water still needs to be pumped.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: In Blyth Valley, as in all the other constituencies, we have a problem. Unfortunately, that problem is not so much water but gas. When Bates colliery—our last pit—was closed, we found underground workings filled with water, which pushed out the gas. We had to drill and put shafts in to relieve the air pressure, because people were being gassed.
We had a bit of a job to persuade British Coal to take responsibility for that at the time, although eventually it did. But what will happen in the future we do not know. There is nothing in the Bill. If those workings are not maintained and fall into disrepair, gas will escape and gas everybody in Cramlington and Blyth Valley.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He will remember that we first met at Bates colliery one Saturday morning in 1978; I cannot remember the time or the exact date. He has made a good point about the uncertainty. The Bill engenders uncertainty among coalfield communities and people who wish to protect the environment, and uncertainty for individuals. Lord Strathclyde missed the point completely, because, where the deep mines are no longer extracting coal, there is no successor authority to British Coal. That is the problem that faces the House, and the Opposition are trying to define it clearly.
It all boils down to nothing more than guidelines. We have Government assurances, and they mention broad objectives and reasonably practical standards; protection is to come second best to resources, and an enhanced environment is to be dependent on everybody from the National Rivers Authority to "appropriate river purification boards", but not on the Government.
Of course, as the Opposition have strongly argued, if the Bill had contained strong environmental safeguards and a proper environmental framework, the Government would not need to rely for safeguarding the environment on voluntary agreements over which they have no legal control, and we would not have had to table the amendment to the Lords amendment.
This is not a party political point; it is not high politics or high drama; it is a sensible decent amendment designed to alleviate the worries of people in coalfield communities and provide proper assurances for the future of those communities. There would be assurances concerning the control of mine water, and people would be less likely to suffer the consequences of mine water pollution. If the amendment were accepted, it would make the Bill clear. To eradicate doubt and uncertainty is one of the functions of the House, and the House will be at its best today if it accepts the amendment.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I shall be extremely brief, but it would be remiss of me not to add weight to the case for the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). His speech was well structured but, regrettably, the Minister was too busy gobbing when he should have been listening.


If he had listened, he might have learnt something. Regrettably, yet again, our words have fallen on stony ground.
The amendment is important because of the Government's past practice. When they have relied on voluntary agreements, those agreements have failed. If we are to believe the Government, the environment is vital, not only to this country, but to the rest of the world. Here the Government have the opportunity to practise what they preach. The onus is on them to introduce legislation to bring improvements.
Don drainage in Doncaster, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) knows, was the result of extra money being paid by local people. If subsidence occurs and interferes with that drainage, there will be an impact on the environment. Pollution is bound to follow. I suggest that, for once, the Minister listens to Labour Members and accepts the amendment.
One of the problems is that the Government propose to leave the matter to the voluntary sector. Mine owners in the past did nothing to ensure that we had a healthy environment. Given that, the Minister must accept the amendment if we are to ensure that future generations will have a proper environment.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall that in his area, as in mine, spoil heaps in mining areas have been an important issue in the past 20 to 30 years? Happily, Governments have taken action to deal with spoil heaps. The majority of spoil heaps, certainly in my area, were created in the days of private enterprise, but over the past 30 years the Government have had to accept responsibility for dealing with the problem, which they did not create. We face a similar problem now. The industry was nationalised from 1947 until now. Many of the water pollution problems need to be dealt with by the organisation that owned the industry—the British people, through the British Government.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point about spoil heaps, which is a valid one. The coal tip at Yorkshire Main pit caught fire. The pollution caused was not water pollution, but air-borne pollution which caused serious environmental health problems for a number of my constituents downwind of the fire. The Minister should look at the past voluntary agreements, which have not worked, and he should also consider other privatisations carried out by the Government. Leaving matters to the voluntary sector has not worked, so I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment. Let us move forward to a better future.

Mr. Peter Hardy: A number of my hon. Friends will recall that my interest in the environment of the coalfields, especially the South Yorkshire coalfield, is long standing. When I entered the House in 1970, I made a fuss about the disgusting condition of our main rivers in South Yorkshire—the Rother, the Dearne and the Don—which were in the lowest category and were little better than open sewers. The Yorkshire Rivers Authority gave a pledge that our rivers would be brought to recreational standard by the mid-1980s. In the mid-1980s, the authority promised that they would be brought to a decent standard by the year 2000. I now wonder whether that standard will be reached.
The reason for my doubt is that many of the streams that feed into the rivers were maintained to a more decent

standard than the rivers they joined, because of the work of the National Coal Board and the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit. Those bodies controlled the discharge from abandoned pits.
I remember spending time with Mr. Ditchfield and his colleagues at the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit, which was based in my constituency, and being lowered to the bottom of a shaft of a colliery which had closed in 1873. The shaft had to be kept open for the purposes of pumping. Unfortunately, because of British Coal's economising, the mines drainage unit was closed and the responsibility was passed to Silverwood colliery in my constituency.
But Silverwood colliery is about to close, and the industry will be privatised. The responsibility will accrue to the Coal Authority, and we have not had any assurance that the Coal Authority will have the resources, or the legal power, or the interest, or, in fact, the size of membership and staffing resources, to enable it to do its job.
The Minister is somewhat less enthusiastic about the privatisation of the mining industry than he was when the Bill was first produced.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hardy: Oh, no. When the Government wanted to privatise the pits, they were a great deal more enthusiastic and cheery. But, as the months of consideration went by, they began to realise the scale and liability which would accrue when the public sector's interest diminished—the liability of the legacy of hundreds of thousands of men who suffered or may suffer the consequences of industrial disease. The liability to the environment may be greater than that. It is such a great liability that I do not think that any private insurer would offer a policy.
It is little use the Government and our local authorities devoting resources and giving priority and a great deal of attention to promoting our economic revival as a result of the closure of our pits if not enough is done to prevent the devastation which can follow in the absence of a proper exercise of responsibility. All my hon. Friends who have intervened—a great number already have—will have surely drawn the Minister attention's to the fact that the Coal Authority must have the capacity, in terms of law and resource. It seems essential and, in the interests of those areas affected, the amendment must become part of the Bill.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister will give us that assurance and also give the coalfields of Britain—and former coalfields—the assurance that the authority will have the capacity to exercise properly the responsibilities that the Minister and his colleagues will have placed on it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I share with him, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the constituency responsibility for Breich water and the Almond. One needs only to go along the Almond now, which, incidentally, used to be a clean river because it was cleaned up, and one can see bubbles of iron oxide. There is a real ferruginous pollution problem.
I do not believe in muscling in on the Committees of other Bills on which hon. Friends have worked extremely


hard, so I shall content myself with one question, when I have the Minister's attention. I shall ask the question when I have the Minister's attention.
Who is responsible? Lengthy correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland and talking to Scottish Ministers has not identified who is responsible for the cleaning up of the Almond and Breich water. It is a simple, straight question. If those in the Box cannot answer it, I would hope to receive a letter from the Department.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The arguments have been well rehearsed over the past months while we have considered the Bill. However, even at this late stage, it is important to press the amendment for the people who live in the coalfield communities, because, over the years, they have lived with pollution and dereliction. People who live in coalfield villages and towns have high aspirations for their children and for their environment. They have seen enormous dereliction over the past few months.
Over the past year, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has been laid waste by a closure programme. The people of Nottinghamshire now want to see the environment lifted, and the amendment would provide a way of doing that. It would secure the future over contaminated land and pit spoil heaps.
The people in Nottinghamshire want to see Sherwood forest come again. They have an ambitious scheme to create a new community forest—a forest that will be planted on the spoil heap. Some of the spoil heaps may pass into the ownership of voluntary bodies. The people of Nottinghamshire do not want to be left with commitments that they cannot meet. Assurances have been given by the Minister and his colleagues in another place, but the amendment would secure that future.
The amendment also brings to a head the issue of mine water, which has been pursued relentlessly by my hon. Friends. At Annesley, all the water from the western side of the Nottinghamshire coalfield and from Derbyshire is pumped up. Annesley colliery is now closed. Discussions are now going on between the National Rivers Authority, British Coal and other partners about its future.
Annesley colliery lies next to Newstead village—next to Newstead Abbey, the home of Lord Byron. It is an area where local authorities, led by governing borough councils, have made major changes. They are lifting and building the environment. Unless the issue of mine water is resolved—and resolved quickly—there will be real problems. The amendment before the House would secure that future. It would put some real commitments in the Bill.
I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The Minister has talked about the importance of the Coal Authority. Now that the Coal Authority has a chairman—and I understand that a chief executive will be announced shortly—it is essential that it is properly resourced and has adequate personnel to tackle these issues. At present, the feeling in coalfield communities is that the Coal Authority could be a lame dog—a dog that will not bark. Our amendment aims to back the Coal Authority and ensure that things happen in coalfield communities to give them a better future.
In the past, the Minister has argued—indeed, he may well use the same argument this afternoon—that the amendment would wreck the Bill and cause difficulties for the private sector. I do not believe that that is the case,

because my discussions with the private sector suggest that it is anxious about privatisation. Private sector companies are anxious about the liabilities that might have to be picked up. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he is talking to private sector companies about that issue.
We want a better environment for coalfield communities. Even at this late stage, the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Michael Clapham: This is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister is prepared to take it on board. He will recall that the issue was raised time and time again during the long Committee stage.
At one point, I explained to the Minister the situation that has arisen in my constituency as a result of the River Don being polluted by a colliery that closed down in the latter part of the 1960s. That is something which the community opposed over a long period, but it has been unable to get anything positive done. That could easily be the situation with many of the collieries which have already closed, and those which will close in the future, unless we have a similar amendment.
I dra	w the Minister's attention to a situation that occurred only a few weeks ago in my constituency. Once again, it illustrates the sort of situation that we may face time and time again in mining communities. The Worsbrough reservoir is fed by a beck that runs down the countryside from Silkstone. It is also added to by many abandoned mine workings.
One of those mine workings, the Stafford mine, which closed down many years ago, is the low point for many of the collieries around. It has pumped into that beck some 1.5 million gallons per day. In October 1993, British Coal decided that it would stop the pumping operation. That has had a catastrophic effect on the reservoir, because one of the local sewage plants also feeds into the reservoir. That is adding immensely to the problems in the reservoir which have been experienced by local anglers.
I wrote to the Minister on the issue. When Lord Strathclyde discussed the amendment in the other place, he made the point that problems such as that at Worsbrough reservoir would become high priorities. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister tells us today whether he is prepared in circumstances such as we face at Worsbrough to give a direction that the pumping should be restarted. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he will give a direction that the pumping should be restarted at the Stafford colliery to alleviate the problem in Worsbrough reservoir.
I should also point out to the Minister that this morning we received a letter from the National Rivers Authority stating that it was prepared to spend £35,000 on aeration equipment to try to alleviate the problem. However, that will by no means ease the problem, because the reservoir is also the source of the River Dove in Yorkshire. As the reservoir becomes polluted, so does the River Dove. It is essential that we have aeration equipment, and that pumping is restarted at the Stafford mine.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the amendment, and that pumping operations will be restarted at the Stafford colliery.

Ms Joan Walley: I should like the Minister to deal with one issue in respect of


environmental liabilities. When we are talking about flood water, it is easy to see what the specific problems are. The particular problem to which I wish to refer is now becoming commonplace throughout coal mining areas, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, North. It is the issue of mine shafts and adits. The problem is not quite subsidence, and is not easily visible. It seems to me that the problem has come about as the result of a specific disagreement between British Coal and the Law Society.
Some time ago, British Coal had an obligation to say whether there was a former mine shaft within 5 in of a property, although 5 m was never specified. It seems that there is now a voluntary agreement, under which, if there is a mine shaft within 20 m of a property, British Coal has to disclose the fact. Only since the property market has started to move again and the new arrangement came into force have we begun to understand the extent of the problem in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. Many houses currently on the market have been blighted simply because British Coal has said that there is a shaft within 20 m of the property.
In his reply on the overall environmental liabilities, I should like the Minister to deal with the issue of mine shafts. How is it anticipated that the costs of searching for mine shafts will be met? Anyone who bought a house before the new agreement came into force had no idea that British Coal would come up with the information that there was a mine shaft within 20 m of the property. I understand that the cost of carrying out the search amounts to about £800. I might add that the search is a fairly dangerous undertaking.
When we talk about transferring costs from British Coal to the new authority that will take its place, we must make certain that, at the heart of the legislation, we ensure that the costs of identifying former pit shafts, adits and so on has been met. People—many of whom have given their lives to the coal industry—must not find themselves with a property which they cannot sell, simply because they fall within a 20 m rule. I can well imagine the Minister saying that the matter might in some way impinge upon the regulations which relate to subsidence, but the technicality of it is that those mine shafts are not quite the same thing as subsidence.
4.30 pm
We need an undertaking from the Minister today that, if we do not get the matter sorted out as we reach the final stages of the legislation, he will consult the Coalfield Communities Campaign and local authorities to make sure that individual home owners do not have to meet those enormous costs. They must not be prevented from moving on and selling their homes. We are talking about contaminated land and about a legacy of environmental dereliction, and I want some firm assurances from the Minister today in that respect.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for not being here when he opened the debate, as I was on my way back from an engagement in my constituency.
As hon. Members have said, this matter has been argued in this place, in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I say to the Minister that the issue between us—which is addressed in the Opposition amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team and signed by my hon.

Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and myself on behalf of our party—is whether the undertaking given in the other place is written into the Bill, and is not left as mere words uttered in debate in Parliament.
The key issue is to make sure that the liabilities are perceived to be liabilities which do not lead to risks arising unintentionally on people who cannot bear them. Do the Government have a clear policy about the issue in relation to their privatisation of energy? For example, is the attitude evidenced by the amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade intended to be a precursor to a similar attitude in relation to the nuclear industry? What is the Government's policy towards risk arising from environmental liabilities on privatisation?
The difference is simply that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have came to the House and asked us to accept something which says that they think that the risk should arise
except where it is reasonable to believe that that person…will be able to finance their discharge.
That is the only time when the transfer of liabilities will carry that guarantee. It is an objective test, and the Minister will know the difference between one and the other is the difference between an objective test and a subjective test. The "reasonable to believe" test introduces a characteristic that is a lesser protection than that which was put into the Bill in the Lords.
People clearly want the best protection against environmental risk, and I hope that the Government will accept that there must be the best protection. Whether the Government think that protection should reside with the Coal Authority—as is argued from the Opposition Benches—or somewhere else, I hope that they are consistent with what they always say elsewhere, and that the best environmental protection will be guaranteed.
Therefore, if that is the case, there is no argument but that the amendment passed in the Lords should be the amendment sustained. The Government amendment, which weakens that provision, should not be adopted by the House.

Mr. Skinner: My view is that, if the Government do not do anything about water pollution, it will be a disaster waiting to happen. It might not happen next week or even in a couple of years, but in three or four years somebody will ask what we were doing in Parliament to allow this to happen.
My mind goes back to Aberfan. We had a nationalised industry at that time which meant that we could do things in an emergency. But Aberfan was a disaster, and people asked what was going on. As everyone knows, they piled up all the stuff on top of a mountain and more than 200 kids in the village school were swamped. Fortunately, because it was under public ownership, a direct grant for clearance programmes could be set in process. We had such a slag heap removed in Clay Cross when I was on the local authority.
Under private ownership, the potential owners of 19 or 20 pits will not carry the can for such problems. When Silverhill colliery next to my constituency was closing, I was told that every pump used to pump water out of the pit cost £5,000 a week to run. That is a lot of money, and I think that Silverhill colliery has two pumps.
All my colleagues and others well versed in mining procedures know that that amount can be multiplied countless times in every coalfield, given the amount of


pumping that went on. In Derbyshire, for instance, there are no pits left. I believe that one pump is operating at Creswell colliery for the whole of north Derbyshire. It is laughable.
The net result is that the water is rising at Bolsover and a land slip has already occurred. Six houses have been demolished. British Coal and the Department of the Environment say, "It's nothing to do with us." But six people have lost their houses and many more are placed in jeopardy. We want £1,500,000 from the Government so that the county can start a drainage scheme. That kind of thing will be the pattern in every coalfield.
Some people may argue that that is relatively clean water, but what happens in areas where the water is polluted? Those of us who are old enough remember the days before public ownership. I would have my earhole belted because I used to jump over little streams which we used to call "ochre water" because they were a dirty yellow colour. The water poured off the tips of privatised pits. That is the sort of feature that will occur in future.
The Government send people to Rio and all those environmental conferences, but do not care tuppence about the environment when it comes to the test. They have dogmatically pursued their privatisation scheme without thinking it through and now they have a problem.
Remarkably, in a series of votes today, Labour Members of Parliament will support amendments on the side of country landowners—they are involved in trying to save the property, whereas we are doing it because we know that it is morally right—while the Tories will go into the Lobby to attack their own people. The issue is not just about playing partisan politics. It is about the morality of allowing all that pollution to take place, as my hon. Friends have said over and over again.
Nuclear power gets £1.3 billion. We think that it is for production purposes, but the Government tell us that it is for decommissioning—for what happens after the production process. Is what we are discussing the same as the nuclear argument? We are asking who will clean up the mess once the production process has been completed. The decommissioning of the coal mining industry is the same argument.
We are told that the Government must find up to £22 billion in the next several years to decommission all the nuclear power plants. We are not asking for that kind of commitment today. All we are asking is that the Government come to their senses and understand that there will be major environmental pollution in every coalfield in Scotland, Wales and England. It is time that they accepted the morality of the amendment, which will go a little way towards resolving the problem, not for today or even next week, but for generations to come.

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the House will not misunderstand me when I say that this is a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of previous debates, and that there is a fundamental difference of view between Conservative Members and Opposition Members.
It is straightforward. Opposition Members believe that the Coal Authority should be responsible for all liabilities, even liabilities that arise in areas that are owned by private sector coal companies. Conservative Members say that the

Coal Authority should have responsibility for all liabilities except those that arise in areas that are the responsibility of the private sector.
We debated the issue in Committee, at the very beginning. At that stage, I was able to put several hon. Members' anxieties in perspective, at least, and I firmly established that the Coal Authority is responsible in the vast majority of cases. It will, in practice, be an exception for a private sector mining company to have responsibility; the exception will be where it has purchased the assets.
Much as I enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—this time as ever—I think that he did not recognise that fundamental position.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us what he told us in Committee, but he is still missing the point—that, where there is no licensed operator, in relation to deep mines from which coal is no longer extracted, the responsibilities and liabilities of British Coal end in limbo.

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bell: Perhaps, as the Minister says, they will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority.

Mr. Eggar: indicated assent.

Mr. Bell: The Minister nods. The Opposition are arguing that it is not in the Bill. If he says that responsibility lies with the Coal Authority, why should he not now accept our amendment? Then we shall all know that it is in the Bill and that it is the responsibility of the Coal Authority, and we can all rest reasonably in peace.

Mr. Eggar: It emphatically is in the Bill, because the Coal Authority, under clause 73, takes over the ownership of all unworked coal and coal mines, including all abandoned mines. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear that, where the private sector does not own the assets, the liabilities and such assets as there are are transferred to the Coal Authority.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) seemed to me to be identifying the core point, which is about the resources—funding and manpower—that will go to the Coal Authority. I attach much importance to that, and I have very much taken on board the points that he made.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned a specific, important matter in his constituency, and I will write to him about that.

Mr. Dalyell: Scottish law is slightly different. The highly competent Lothian river purification board and its officials, such as Mr. William Halcrow, do not know where responsibility lies. Will the Minister give the undertaking that one of his expert senior officials in Scotland will sit down with the board's officials and consider what is an urgent ferruginous pollution problem?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman makes a specific request of that nature, I undertake to pass on his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to ask that the problem be investigated at a senior level and that, if possible, a satisfactory outcome be reached.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) raised a specific point about mine shafts' interrelationship with the Law Society. It will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority, as I understood the thrust of her remarks, and I will ensure that it tackles that specific issue because I have not come across the specific


issue of "undiscovered" mine shafts before. I am grateful to her for mentioning it, and I will ensure that we follow that up.
Finally, I think I signed a letter to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) at the weekend. I am sorry that he has not received it, but. from memory, I think that active negotiation and discussion is going on between British Coal and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. British Coal acts as agent for Yorkshire Water at present, and discussions are going on about the way that the issue should be handled. The hon. Gentleman should have my letter soon. I am sorry that he has not received it yet. I hope that that will set his mind at rest.
We accept the basic thrust of Lords amendment No. 1, although the precise wording might give rise to problems—it would introduce some uncertainty as to whether the Secretary of State had discharged the obligation. We have therefore proposed Government amendment (a). I understand that the proposer of the Lords amendment accepts that our amendment meets the fundamental point that he wished to address. I think that it is more precise, and I therefore hope that it will be acceptable to the House.
4.45pm
This is a familiar debate. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming than I have been able to be on previous occasions. I am convinced that the Coal Authority will discharge its liabilities appropriately, and that the anxieties that have been mentioned by many Opposition Members have been—

Ms Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I make certain what he proposes in answer to my point—that he will ensure that he meets all those people who have expertise about the problem, and that we can have meetings to discuss the issues that I brought to his attention?

Mr. Eggar: I cannot give the hon. Lady a firm pledge that I personally will be involved in the meetings, as I am sure she will understand. I am sure that my officials are aware of the matter, but I personally am not. I understand the origin of her concerns, and I will ensure that the matter is inquired into. If there are what I would call "loose ends" to it, I shall do my best to ensure that they are sorted out.
I hope that, with that assurance, the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.

Mr. Bell: I have no intention of withdrawing it. Clause 73, to which the Minister drew my attention, deals with interests, not obligations. It deals with coal that is in the pits which may be used again by the Coal Authority, but not the environmental liabilities about which we have spoken.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:�ž

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 282.

Division No. 273]
[4.47 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin-Walker, John


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Alton, David
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Armstrong, Hilary
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony





Bennett, Andrew F.
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Berry, Roger
Jamieson, David


Betts, Clive
Janner, Greville


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jowell, Tessa


Burden, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Byers, Stephen
Keen, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Callaghan, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cann, Jamie
Loyden, Eddie


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAvoy, Thomas


Church, Judith
McCartney, Ian


Clapham, Michael
Macdonald, Calum


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McLeish, Henry


Clelland, David
McNamara, Kevin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
MacShane, Denis


Coffey, Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Mahon, Alice


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mandelson, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Tom
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cummings, John
Martlew, Eric


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Dafis, Cynog
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Milburn, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Miller, Andrew


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Morgan, Rhodri


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Morley, Elliot


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Denham, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dixon, Don
Mudie, George


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Dowd, Jim
Murphy, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Olner, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Paisley, Rev Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pope, Greg


George, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Purchase, Ken


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Raynsford, Nick


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Gunnell, John
Rendel, David


Hain, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hanson, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hardy, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harvey, Nick
Rooker, Jeff


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Heppell, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hodge, Margaret
Short, Clare


Hoon, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Hutton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Spellar, John






Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wright, Dr Tony


Timms, Stephen
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Walley, Joan



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Bates, Michael
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, Dudley


Booth, Hartley
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Budgen, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Cheryl


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butler, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, William


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Congdon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick


Cran, James
Hawksley, Warren


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hayes, Jerry


Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hendry, Charles


Day, Stephen
Hicks, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Devlin, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Horam, John





Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mates, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moate, Sir Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whitney, Ray


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Wilshire, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ottaway, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 22, to insert new clause—Designated mining museums—
. The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the administration of the financial assistance provided by him for coal mining museums during the period of three years following the restructuring date, within six months of the end of that period.

5 pm

Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this we may consider the following Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 2: After clause 59 insert the following clause:—
As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years beginning with the restructuring date, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out particulars of—

(a) the financial assistance provided during that period to coal-mining museums, so far as it has involved the making of payments for that purpose to any person by the Secretary of State;
(b) the manner in which the provision of that financial assistance has been administered; and
(c) the use to which that financial assistance has been put by the coal-mining museums which have received it.'.

Mr. Eggar: Although the Lords amendment reflects an agreement that had been reached regarding its objective, we stated in the other place that we would come forward with our own wording. That is the reason for the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
A number of hon. Members present will remember the debate on mining museums some months ago. There were discussions following that debate, and on 9 June my noble Friend the Minister of State told the other place that we would make available transitional funding of some £900,000 over three years, and that that funding would be made available to the Yorkshire and Scottish mining museums and the Big Pit mining museum in south Wales. That will replace help in kind currently provided by British Coal.
It is fair to say that the announcement by my noble Friend has been widely welcomed, as has the gist of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Government amendment represents an attempt by the Government to correct what they considered to be shortcomings in the amendment voted on in the other place; our misgivings derive essentially from its caution.
Although the three-year commitment is far too short, we recognise the distance that the Government have moved since we originally debated the issue in Committee. At that time, the Government were in large measure indifferent to the plight of the museums and did not properly appreciate the scale of the contribution made to them by British Coal. They have moved a considerable distance since then, although probably not far enough.
The Government have identified the three main museums—the one in Yorkshire, the one in Scotland and the Big Pit in south Wales. There may well be others which deserve assistance but which the Government have not seen fit to support on this occasion.

Ms Walley: One museum not so far included in the list is Chatterley Whitfield museum in my constituency, which, as the House knows, has already closed. Urgent discussions are taking place with a view to establishing whether there is any way in which Chatterley Whitfield could reopen and whether part of the national coal collection could come back to Chatterley Whitfield as part of the operations that the Charity Commission is considering. It is important that Chatterley Whitfield should not be excluded from any discussions because it may be in a position to reopen at some stage in the near future.

Mr. O'Neill: The whole House knows the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on a number of occasions over the Chatterley Whitfield mine. It is perhaps significant that, although the Minister referred to three mining museums, the amendment makes no mention of a number. I hope that that leaves the door open for some discussion.
We have one misgiving in particular about the formula that the Government have reached. The role of local authorities will be quite central to the future success of the mining museums, but this is a time of great uncertainty for local authorities; we do not know what the boundaries will be or what responsibilities local authorities will have after the Government's programme of changes and reform.
We recognise that the Government are probably making the best of a bad job, but the amendment none the less marks a sizeable achievement on the part of the people, the organisations and, in particular, the local authorities that have campaigned to secure a future for the museums.
Coal mining museums represent a substantial repository of the industrial and cultural heritage of our mining communities. We want them to continue. We believe that, at the end of the three-year period, their success will be such that the Government will be well advised to provide the necessary support to enable them to thrive and expand.
We give the amendment grudging and limited support. We do not say that with any malign intent, but had the Government been forthcoming earlier, we might have been spared a great deal of the anxiety that has been expressed on these matters by Members of both Houses.
We pay tribute to those in the other place who were able to secure a majority for a proposition that did not receive majority support in this House, and we recognise that the assurances given by the Government have in large measure been met by the amendment. The proposal does not go as far as we would like, but we are pleased that we have achieved some concessions. We shall wait with interest to see what form the report will take, because in three years' time it will be delivered to a Labour Government who will be more sympathetic to the plight of the museums and more likely to encourage their future success when the opportunity arises. For those reasons, we are happy to give the amendment our backing.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: One or two hon. Members will recall that I tabled a new clause on Report dealing with the issue of mining museums. I have a particular interest because the Yorkshire mining museum is in my constituency. There was great concern that no


consideration had been given to the future assistance for that and other mining museums on the back of what had previously been provided by British Coal. I welcome the fact that successful efforts were made in the other place to change the Government's mind. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that it is a welcome move.
I want briefly to pay tribute to those in the other place, from all parties and from none, who were very much involved in lobbying the Government. I want also to pay tribute to those from Yorkshire who worked very hard to bring about the Government's change of mind. I must also mention Dr. Margaret Faull and her staff at the Yorkshire mining museum. They have kept everyone effectively briefed on the predicament faced by that and other museums. They worked long and hard and they will have gained some crumb of comfort from the success in the other place.
I should be glad if the Minister would deal with the distribution of the funding. The proposal is for £100,000 per year for each of the three museums. That distribution is a little unfair as two of the three museums include an underground element that adds to their costs. I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has just walked into the Chamber; he has been very supportive.
I echo the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan about what happens after the three-year period has elapsed. We want a guarantee that the museums will not face a death sentence and that attempts will be made to secure funding, from whatever source, so that they can continue to play a valuable role.
As I said, we welcome the Government's change of mind. We are not entirely satisfied but at least the amendment represents a move forward on an issue of great concern in my constituency and elsewhere.

Mr. Hardy: I do not have a museum in my constituency, but I have long been interested in the history of the mining industry. For the greater part of the period from 1850 to 1950, about 1 million men were engaged in the industry. Before 1850, hundreds of thousands were. The impact of the industry on the social and economic history of our country—especially in the numerous coalfields that existed, some of which still exist—is such that the historic importance and relevance of the industry and its legacies must be retained. For the Government to turn their back on the museums in three years' time would be an act of crass philistinism.
I ask the Minister to assure my hon. Friends who have museums in their areas that the museums' maintenance will be encouraged because of the historic and educational importance of that inheritance.

Mr. John Gunnell: I, too, welcome the fact that funding is being made available to ensure that the three mining museums maintain their present role. I pay tribute to those who have visited the Yorkshire mining museum at Caphorse colliery. The Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage and several noble Lords who spoke on the matter in the other place visited the underground mine and appreciated its great educational benefits. I am sure that it is one reason for their Support.
5.15 pm
However, some significant limitations must be dealt with. There should be some relationship between the distribution of the grant and the help in kind that the museums received from British Coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has my support in his contention that, although the even distribution may represent parity as between Scotland, Wales and England, it does not represent parity in expense. I hope that that part of the proposed report referred to in Government amendment (a)(c)—
the use to which financial assistance has been put"—
will relate to the help in kind given by British Coal to the museums. The grant should replace that help.
The original proposal was for the report to be delivered six months before the end of the three-year period. The amendment changes that to
As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years".
I hope that that will not cut out any extension of the grant should that be necessary. I am sure that each of the museums will work hard to attract sponsorship to provide the money that they need. If the distribution of grant is even, the Yorkshire mining museum will have to find an additional £70,000 from year one because previously it received help in kind from British Coal of £170,000 a year.
This is an important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to what a future Labour Government would do. I am a member of the board of trustees of the Yorkshire mining museum—a non-pecuniary interest—and I shall ensure that the other members are made aware of my hon. Friend's comments.
The Caphorse colliery began in 1791. It existed at the time when Mozart died. The grant will help to ensure that it continues to exist. However, that must amount to more than three additional years of life.

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the trustees of the Yorkshire mining museum will want to hear what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) might have a view on such spending commitments should the unthinkable happen.
I do not wish to mislead the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), so I must tell her that I cannot hold out any realistic hope of assistance for Chatterley Whitfield.
On the points about the division of funds between the three museums, quite frankly whatever way we had decided to divide up the available money would have attracted criticism. Arguments were put on behalf of each museum, but we felt that the best practice would be to allocate the same to each of them. I am sorry that some museums feel hard done by, but I feel that that is the best way to do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Schedule 5

PENSIONS PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH RESTRUCTURING

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 102, line 29, after ("by") insert
("or in accordance with the directions of")

Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Mr. Eggar: This series of technical amendments relates to pensions provision. Let me record my thanks to all who have been involved in discussions about the pensions issue—the trustees of the many schemes and all who have worked to assist them. I also thank the Opposition formally for the co-operative way in which they have approached the debate.
I think that there was always a genuine worry, shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that a technical but emotive issue would enter the political arena in a way that would upset many elderly pensioners for no good reason. The mining industry as a whole—unions and trustees—and hon. Members on both sides of the House have co-operated to bring about an outcome that is satisfactory from all points of view, without upsetting pensioners.

Mr. O'Neill: I join the Minister in thanking the trustees, who devoted considerable time and effort to wide

consultation on the nature of the changes. When they went to Ministers, those Ministers had to heed what was being said, because pensioners, beneficiaries, trustees and others had a strong case to make. Ministers recognised that, and the necessary changes have been made—to the general appreciation, although not necessarily the overwhelming satisfaction, of most people.
Some 97 per cent. of members of the scheme are now beneficiaries, and a very small number are still contributors. It is therefore essential that proper provision be made for the long term. As I have said, it is to the trustees' credit that consensus was established: the arrangements were sold to the Government in a constructive way, and our constituents who are beneficiaries can now look forward to the future with far more certainty than they could when the Bill first appeared.
The Opposition pay tribute to all who played a substantial part in trying to make this section of the Bill benefit people who have made a great contribution to a once great industry, and to the economic well-being of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 102, line 50, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

("(3A) The modifications of an existing scheme that may be made by regulations under this paragraph shall include modifications making such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for cases where either—

(a) there are assets of the scheme representing a relevant surplus, or
(b) the assets of the scheme are insufficient for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.

(3B) The modifications mentioned in sub-paragraph (3A) above may contain—

(a) provision for a relevant surplus, and the assets representing it, to be apportioned between—

(i) the part (if any) of the surplus which is to be retained in a reserve ("an investment reserve") as an asset of the scheme, and
(ii) the remainder ("the distributable part") of the surplus;


(b) provision for the management of assets representing an investment reserve and for the manner in which any such assets are to be applied;
(c) provision for income accruing in respect of assets representing an investment reserve to be added to the reserve;
(d) provision for the manner in which assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus are to be applied; and
(e) provision, for the purposes of any provision under paragraphs (a) to (d) above, for modifying any decisions' as to the way in which relevant surpluses determined as at times before the restructuring date. and the assets representing any such surpluses, are to be treated.

(3C) The provision as to the apportionment of any surplus or assets to an investment reserve that may be contained in modification made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall not include any provision authorising the allocation to such a reserve of any part of a surplus determined as at a time after 31st March 1994, or of any assets representing any part of such a surplus, except where the allocation is made for making good amounts that would have been comprised in the value of the reserve if assets representing any part of it had not been applied from the reserve in meeting a deficiency that arose as at any time by reason of the other assets of the scheme having been insufficient as at that time for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.

(3D) The provision as to the application of assets representing an investment reserve that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

(a) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question, and
(b) the value of the assets representing the reserve exceeds the aggregate amount required for the purposes for which the reserve has been retained,

to assets of the scheme representing the amount of the excess or, where those purposes have ceased, the value of the reserve.

(3E) The provision as to the application of assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

(a) the surplus is one determined as at a time on or after 31st March 1994, and
(b) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question,

to assets of the scheme representing no more than one half of the distributable part of that surplus.")

Amendment made to Lords amendment: In line 7 of proposed sub-paragraph (3C), leave out 'that' and insert 'which' (apart from any entitlement for which provision is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3D) below)'.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Schedule 8

AMENDMENTS OF THE OPENCAST COAL ACT 1958

Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 117, line 29, at end insert—
("Terms on which orders to be exercised
.—(1) The owner of the interest against whom the compulsory rights order (in this paragraph referred to as "the owner") has been made shall be entitled to—

(a) payment on the basis of either—

(i) the open market value of the rights granted as would have been fair and reasonable if the agreement had been made between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, or
(ii) the compensation for the losses caused to him assessed in accordance with sections 17 to 23 of this Act,

whichever is the higher, and
(b) secure such terms, guarantees and other security from the person entitled to occupy the land in respect of which the compulsory rights order is conferred (in this paragraph referred to as "the operator") as are necessary to protect the owner from any loss, damage, claims or other costs related to the exercise of the compulsory rights order.


(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a)(i) of this paragraph, the assessment of the open market value shall take into account—

(a) the basis on which the operator has entered into agreements with the owners of other interests to permit the working of the same coal deposit, and
(b) the basis on which the owners of other interests have entered into agreements with the operator or other mining companies for the extraction of coal on comparable sites.



(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a)(i) of this paragraph, the fact that the operator is in or to be in, a special position by reason of his having secured the licence under Part II of this Act to the exclusion of others shall be ignored.")

Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 126, line 16, after 'section', insert—

'(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words 'Subject to subsection (3A) of this section,"; and
(b)".

Government amendment (b) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 126, line 17, at end insert—
'(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Where—

(a) any compensation is payable for any year by virtue of this section in respect of any holding, and
(b) the amount of that compensation falls to be calculated in accordance with section 18 of this Act by reference to the market value of rights which, if the compulsory rights order were not in force, could not be conferred for that year or any part of it except by or with the consent of one or more persons who are included in the persons directly concerned but do not fall within subsection (3) of this section,

the entitlement to that compensation shall be apportioned, according to the extent to which those rights could not be conferred for that year or part of a year without their participation or consent, between those persons and any person falling within that subsection.
(3B) Subject to subsection (3C) of this section, the persons entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to a share of any compensation shall include persons whose participation in or consent to the conferring of any right would be required if the right were conferred at some time after the beginning of the year or part of a year in question; and any apportionment under subsection (3A) of this section shall take account of the length of the period for which any person is, during that year or part of a year, a person without whose participation or consent any right could not be conferred.


(3C) No person shall be entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to any share of any compensation in respect of any such easement or right as might give rise to an entitlement to compensation under section 31 of this Act.
(6) Subsection (4) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above shall not apply in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed before the restructuring date.

Calculation of compensation

15A. In relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date the following section shall be substituted for section 18, that is to say—

Calculation of compensation under section 17

18.—(1) The compensation payable for any year in respect of a holding to which section 17 of this Act applies shall be a sum equal to the annual borrowing cost for that year of the market value of the rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in relation to the holding.

(2) For the purposes of this section the market value of any rights conferred by a compulsory rights order shall be equal to the amount which, as at the date of entry, would (apart from the order) represent the fair market price, as between willing and independent parties, for the grant of those rights by a person entitled to grant them and for the period for which the order is to have effect.

(3) In calculating for the purposes of this section the fair market price for the grant of any rights, due allowance shall be made for any entitlement to compensation which may arise, otherwise than by virtue of section 17, under any of the provisions of this Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section the annual borrowing cost for any year of any amount ('the market price') is the aggregate sum which would fall to be paid in that year by way of payments of interest and re-payments of capital if the market price had been borrowed on the date of entry on terms which—

(a) required interest to be paid and capital to be repaid by way of the relevant number of equal annual instalments; and
(b) provided for interest on outstanding capital to become due immediately before the time for the payment of each instalment, at an annual rate equal, as at the entry date, to the rate prescribed under section 35(8) of this Act;

and in this subsection 'the relevant number' means the number of years for which, when it was confirmed, the compulsory rights order was to have effect.

(5) Nothing in section 17 of this Act or this section shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect, of the annual borrowing cost of—

(a) any amount representing the value of any person's interest in coal, or
(b) any amount representing the value of any opportunity arising by virtue of an interest or right in or in relation to any land to obtain or make use of any rights to win, work or get any coal

(6) Where the period for which a compulsory rights order is to have effect is extended under this Act, section 17 of this Act and this section shall have effect in relation to the additional period as if the rights conferred for that period had been conferred by a new compulsory rights order."

15B. Sections 19 and 20 (additional annual compensation and special compensation for cost of removal) shall not have effect in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date.'.

Amendment to Government amendment (b) in lieu, leave out new section 15A and insert—

Calculation of compensation

15A. In relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date the following section shall be substituted for section 18, that is to say—

Calculation of compensation under section 17

18.—(1) The compensation payable for any year in respect of a holding to which section 17 of this Act applies

shall be a sum equal to the annual borrowing cost for that year of the market value of the rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in relation to the holding.

(2) For the purposes of this section the market value of any rights conferred by a compulsory rights order shall be equal to the amount which, as at the date of entry, would (apart from the order) represent the fair market price, as between willing and independent parties, for the grant of those rights by a person entitled to grant them and for the period for which the order is to have effect.

(3)(a) In calculating for the purposes of this section the fair market price for the grant of any rights, regard shall be had to any entitlement to compensation which may arise, otherwise than by virtue of section 17, under any of the provisions of this Act.

(b) Where the holding is subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, the fair market price shall be calculated on the assumption that the holding is available for occupation with possession and in any such case the fair market price shall be apportioned between the freeholder and the tenant according to the respective value of their interests.

(4) For the purposes of this section the annual borrowing cost for any year of any amount ("the market price") is the aggregate sum would fall to be paid in that year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if the market price had been borrowed on the date of entry on terms which—

(a) required interest to be paid and capital to be repaid by way of the relevant number of equal annual instalments; and
(b) provided for interest on outstanding capital to become due immediately before the time for the payment of each instalment, at an annual rate equal, as at the date of payment, to the rate prescribed under section 35(8) of this Act;

and in this subsection "the relevant number" means the number of years for which, when it was confirmed, the compulsory rights order was to have effect.

(5) Nothing in section 17 of this Act shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect of the annual borrowing cost of any amount representing the value of any person's interest in coal.

(6) Where the period for which a compulsory rights order is to have effect—

(a) is extended under this Act, section 178 of this Act and this section shall have effect in relation to the additional period as if the rights conferred for that period had been conferred by a new compulsory rights order; or
(b) is terminated at an earlier date than the end of the period for which the order was made for any reason, the outstanding payments of the annual borrowing cost, being the outstanding repayments of capital and the payment of interest calculated in accordance with subsection (4)(b) of this section, shall become payable on the date of early termination.".'.

Government amendments (c) to (m) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 48 and No. 50.

Mr. Eggar: It is important to put the amendments in the right perspective. We are not discussing whether particular opencast developments are acceptable; that is a matter for the planning system.
My right hon. and hon. Friends recognise the concerns that have arisen about such developments and their environmental impact. As the House will know, Ministers have been reviewing the planning guidance—mineral planning guidance note 3—and have conducted a wide-ranging public consultation exercise. This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced his intention—in the light of the responses that he has received—of removing the reference to the national interest in MPG3.
I am sure that that announcement will be widely welcomed, and I consider it a useful clarification which will help to ensure that the guidance incorporated in what has up to now been MPG3 is seen to be fair by all parties. My colleagues will finalise the guidance as soon as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for alluding to answers given this afternoon. Presumably he means the answers given to two questions on the Order Paper. Can he —through his officials or his parliamentary private secretary—ensure that hon. Members can at least have sight of the answers, which must have been published by now and must be in the building somewhere, during the debate? This is clearly an issue central to the discussion that will follow over the next hour or so.

Mr. Eggar: I shall do my best to ensure that hon. Members have the text. The answer was given at 3.30 pm in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

Mr. Hardy: If the reference to the national interest is to be removed from MPG3, why do we have to maintain until the end of the decade the right compulsorily to acquire other people's land for the purposes of opencast mining? Presumably that right was introduced in what the Minister regards as the national interest. If the Government have recognised that the national interest has changed and are removing reference to it from MPG3, why do we have to go ahead with the compulsory purchase of private land by private business? It is completely hostile to the principles that are supposed to motivate Conservative Members.

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall address those issues as the debate moves on.

Mr. Gunnell: I understand that there has been a press release this afternoon. It might be helpful if hon. Members could see the comments that have been made, as they may range a little wider than the answer to the parliamentary question.

Mr. Eggar: I shall do what I can to ensure that the text of the answer is available. It might be for the convenience of the House if I try to make arrangements for it to be placed in the Vote Office. I apologise for its non-availability. I understand the concern.
Lords amendment No. 37 provides for compensation based on market values. We have accepted the principle that lies behind that amendment, but we have sought to table a practical and effective replacement for it.
Our replacement amendment makes it absolutely clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the assessment of market value must be based on the fact that the nation owns the coal. We believe that the amendment should not in any way transfer the value of the coal to the landowner either directly or indirectly. Our view on that is absolutely clear.
That is why we have some reservations about the amendment to our amendment (b) in lieu, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The effect of the omission of subsection (5)(b) of our amendment is to transfer a considerable amount of the value of the coal to the landowner. We have always made it clear in

discussions on this issue that the coal belongs to the nation and not the landowner. Although we have always been open to discussions about a fair market value for the surface land, we have not been willing to discuss, as part of the Bill, the transfer of the value of the coal to the landowners.
Other differences between the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Harborough relate to the way in which the annual payments are calculated. We have gone for a fixed rate of interest rather than a variable rate. We think that that is more straightforward. Given that the average length of time involved in such activities is about six or seven years, that is not an unreasonable approach. Sometimes landowners will gain, and sometimes they will lose, as the variable rate rises and falls.
Another minor difference is that we have used the words "due allowance". The amendment tabled by my hon. Friends uses the words, "regard shall be had". Our calculation is much more precise.
It might be helpful if I put on record a number of important aspects. It is important to know that compensation will not be paid in respect of any interest in the coal simply because, as I have said, the landowner does not own it. It is firmly established that the coal in the ground, just like petroleum and some other special minerals, belongs not to the landowner but to the nation. That must be material to the determination of the market value of rights to occupy land for the purposes of coal extraction.
Equally, no compensation will be payable for any opportunity to win work or get coal arising as a result of interest in or ownership of the land. That is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the landowners do not own the coal. To do otherwise would devalue the ownership of the coal and could transfer a significant part of its value to the landowner. That part of our amendment is consistent with the principles established by the important decision of BP v. Ryder in 1988. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to that in a previous debate.
There has been some discussion about whether the move towards a market value approach for compensation is likely to be more beneficial to the landowner. The annual payments under the existing code take account only of the existing use of the land, whereas the market value determined on the principles of the amendment would be capable of taking into account any alternative use of the land other than coal extraction, in so far as the alternatives might reasonably be thought to affect the market price of the rights to use the land.
The result of the move towards the market price is that we have lost some certainty. In reality, the compensation that is determined in individual cases may be better than under the old system, or it could be the same or may even be worse. That will now be a matter for the market valuation of those rights as determined in the light of the principles that I have outlined.
It is clear that the Government do not accept the amendments passed in the other place that relate to compulsory rights orders. Contrary to the view held by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), we believe that compulsory rights orders are properly controlled in that they are subject to the agreement of the Coal Authority. As an individual operator, one cannot insist on a CRO without


the agreement of the Secretary of State. That must be the right way forward. The CROs come to the end of their period automatically in five years. In the meantime we have agreed to undertake a joint valuation, together with other minerals, to consider the way forward.
The short answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth is that, if we do not have CROs in place, the existing right of the state to own the coal could be negated by a landowner who refused all reasonable offers to exploit his coal. I say "all reasonable offers" because of the severe restrictions on the CROs.

Mr. Clapham: The Minister talked about CROs running for the next five years. As he knows, the capacity of the deep mines is such that they can easily fulfil their contracts with the two generators. So why is there a need to maintain a capacity of 17 million tonnes of opencast mining when we should be looking to decrease that capacity to no more than 5 million tonnes? Surely, if we did that, there would be no need for CROs.

Mr. Eggar: Future projections of the level of opencasting are critically affected by the need to acquire planning permission, which has always been the effective regulator of opencasting. I am not caricaturing the debate in which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and others have been involved, but they see the planning procedure as the regulator of the amount of opencast mining. [Interruption.] Some activity on the Opposition Benches suggests that the answer to the question has been circulated.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Minister says that it is for the planning authority to give guidance and, in effect, be the policeman of planning applications, but the planning authorities refuse many applications, only for them to be granted on appeal by the Secretary of State, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland. It seems that applicants are given a nod and wink and told, "If you don't get it passed by the local authority, it will be passed by the Secretary of State." That is no way to run a country, and certainly no way to run the coal industry.

Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the outcome of some appeals. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but a considerable number of appeals are turned down. Most hon. Members, if not all, accept that we must have an appeal mechanism. They like the system when an appeal favours their constituents. but dislike it if the decision goes the other way.
The important thing is the change in MPG3—an area that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, as a fair man, will recognise that we have addressed in the national interest.
I hope that I have described the reasoning behind the Government's amendments, why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends does not meet with our agreement and why we do not feel able to agree with the Lords amendment on CROs.

Mr. O'Neill: We thought that amendment No. 37 would enhance the Bill as it would go some way towards allowing deep mines to compete fairly with opencast by ensuring that opencast operators paid full compensation when obtaining compulsory rights orders to extract coal against a landowner's wish.
The criteria on which compensation should be based were not those adumbrated by the Minister, that somehow

landowners have a claim of right to ownership of the coal—that is vested in the nation, which we accept—but, first, where a loss to business carried out on the land would arise; secondly, where other values resulting from undisturbed ownership of the land such as amenity and sporting use would be endangered; and, thirdly, that account should be taken of disturbance caused by opencast mining, including dust, noise and general disruption. As drafted, amendment No. 37 covered those factors by referring to the market price paid by operators for access to similar sites and the price paid by operators to obtain access to land on the same site owned by other landowners. Without such compensation, there is less incentive to reach an amicable settlement with landowners, and opencast coal production is given artificial assistance in production which is denied to other mineral extraction processes, including deep coal mining.
You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a fair degree of cynicism surrounding the planning mechanism. We all know how, times without number, opencast developers have made applications in the certain knowledge that if they do not win with the local authority they will certainly win with the Minister, and that even if the application goes to a public inquiry the Minister will find in favour of opencasting. In some respects, it must be said that the national interest provision of MPG3 was largely meaningless and perhaps not the best way of proceeding.
5.45 pm
The Government say that somehow Lords amendment No. 37, which commended itself to Cross Benchers, the Opposition and the serried ranks of landowners, is unworkable and that therefore the Government amendments are necessary. They say that compensation should not be available for general disturbance. Many of my constituents have had to put up with opencast mining and have considerable experience of the disturbance caused by dust, noise and general disruption. Such disturbance often arises from the carte blanche that is offered by ministerial diktat to insist that opencast mining goes on and that no provision is made for the legitimate concerns that local authorities would seek to reflect in a qualified acceptance of a planning application. A local authority may choose not to reject an application out of hand but to impose controls that we would regard as a reasonable defence of people's rights, yet we are told that such controls are not necessary as they cover matters of a different character. We do not accept that that recognises the ownership of the coal by landowners. We recognise that in some instances compulsory rights orders will be necessary.
Under amendment No. 38, we recognise that they might be necessary for large operations and for markets that cannot be satisfied from another source. Coal mines adjacent to electricity power stations produce coal that needs some form of sweetening which can come only from other sources. More of our deep mines are being closed, for whatever reason, thereby denying access to reserves of coal with the sweetening potential. On occasions, it will be necessary to have certain opencast development. We do not rule out opencasting completely, but it must be subject to the most stringent conditions possible. That is the thrust of amendment No. 38. A landowner who has refused a reasonable offer for access to coal should have the chance


to protest, but we would not wish opencast to have an advantage over deep mining where all other things were equal.
The two amendments address several concerns that have been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. There have been repeated references to and discussion of opencast, the problems that it creates and the difficulties that we have encountered with it in our own areas. Indeed, those concerns found a ready echo in the dying moments of Report stage, just before Third Reading, when Conservative Members almost rebelled. They went as close as they could to the brink, but then they fell back on their own side, into the arms of the Government. They had tabled the amendments, but we had to move them because they chickened out at the last moment. It would appear that this evening, at or even beyond the last hour—the amendment is starred and might not have been selected —another attempt is being made. Yet so far as I can see, one of the Conservative Members whose name is attached to the amendment is not even in the Chamber. I am sure that he realises that we have reached the appropriate stage in the handling of the Bill and that he ought to be in his place, but he still has not arrived.
We regret the Government's approach. We think that the House of Lords achieved a substantial improvement to the Bill which would have afforded a degree of protection far greater than the sop offered today by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We believe that opencasting will be a continuing and accelerating problem in the months and years ahead, especially with a regulatory authority as weak as the Coal Authority to look after this country's coal reserves.
For that reason, we oppose the Government's intention to disregard the Lords amendments and we give notice that at the appropriate time we shall go into the Lobby to resist it.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The rudeness of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) does him no credit, especially as my hon. Friend may well support much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is not the hon. Gentleman's best point. I should explain to him that my hon. Friend has been chairing two Committee sittings this afternoon. He has been to the Door of the House, but owing to other commitments he has been unable to be here, so I am afraid that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other hon. Members will have to listen to me instead for a moment or two.

Mr. O'Neill: No gratuitous offence was intended, but it is up to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to establish his own sense of priorities. On an issue of such significance, and at this stage in the passage of the Bill, I should have thought that his priorities would lie here rather than elsewhere.

Mr. Garnier: I shall not detain the House further by having a spat with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House. I want to advance some arguments rather than to have a row, because those may produce some answers from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a man whose integrity and intellect I respect and admire.
I shall deal briefly with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and myself to the Government amendment. It suggests a

different form for new clause 15A. My first argument is about our proposed new subsection (3)(b) which, as hon. Members will see, would constitute an addition to the Government amendment. I shall not read it out, because it is on the amendment paper, but I shall explain why my hon. Friend and I—and, I dare say, others—find it of importance.
We note that the Government have still not addressed the concern for landlords where the holding is let. At present the compensation is due to the person who occupies the surface for farming—that is to say, the tenant—yet the compensation covers greater losses and interests in the land. A reference should be made to ensure that the market value is assessed on the basis of vacant possession, to recognise all interests and to apportion between the landlord and the tenant in relation to their interests. As I have opened my remarks in that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear that I am a co-opted member of the Rutland and Leicestershire committee of the Country Landowners Association, and sit on its parliamentary and legal sub-committee in London.
My second point relates to the proposed new subsection (4)(b), which deals with interest. Our complaint here—or at least, our concern—is that for compulsory rights orders covering seven years or more, the imposition of a fixed rate of interest from the outset could work unfairly. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister dealt with that problem to some extent, but when the market value is to be repaid in instalments over several years the payments should reflect the arrangements that the owner may have made following the making of the order. We suggest that interest should be paid at the rate prevailing at the time of each instalment.
My next point relates to our proposed new subsection (6). Again, I shall not read it out as it is on the amendment paper, but one can see that it is an enlarged version of the corresponding part of the Government amendment. Our complaint is that provision should be made for all outstanding sums to be paid if the order is ended early for any reason. In the open market the parties would accept such provision in their freely negotiated agreement, but that does not happen under the compulsory rights orders arrangements in the Bill. We suggest that the arrangements should be incorporated into the Bill to ensure that the person against whom the order is made is paid the full market value of the rights.
I now come to what may be the most contentious aspect of our proposals—our rewriting of the proposed new subsection (5). Our amendment sought to remove the Government's proposed new subsection (5)(b), which refers to
any amount representing the value of any opportunity arising by virtue of an interest or right in or in relation to any land to obtain or make use of any rights to win, work or get any coal.
That flows from the preamble in subsection (5):
Nothing in section 17 of this Act or this section shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect of the annual borrowing cost".
I have a preliminary point to make about that: the English in proposed new subsection (5)(b) is impenetrable. I have been at the Bar since 1976, and a Member of the House for a little more than two years, and I suggest that the time has come for Parliament to pass legislation capable of being understood at a glance. It should not require the assistance of hot towels and hot drinks to disentangle the English. That piece of English is appalling, and the Minister would do well to ask for it to be clarified.


By way of background, I refer the House to what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, Lord Strathclyde, said on Report in another place when dealing with the various sorts of compensation orders and the Government's attitude to compensation:
One other obvious category of potentially reasonable request from the landowner would be for better compensation for disturbance. There may be some kind of disturbance which would be caused by the proposed workings and which is particular to the case. A request for extra compensation in such circumstances might well be reasonable. In fact, I believe that it would be eminently reasonable.
Here I interpose to say that I wholeheartedly agree. The noble Lord continued:
A further factor I would mention is the possibility of alternative uses for the land. If the landowner has a good case that, but for the opencast development, he would be able to go ahead with a different kind of development he would naturally seek greater compensation. I believe that this is sometimes called 'hope' value.
I do not think that it would necessarily be unreasonable for the landowner to seek compensation enhanced by the 'hope' value of the land, although of course everything will turn on how realistic those hopes may be. But all these matters would have to be considered in the particular circumstances, and what I have said must be taken to be just an indication of what may be relevant matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1569–70.]
Unless I am being deeply obtuse, it appears that the Government's attitude to that aspect of the Bill has changed somewhat since it left the other place.
There is no dispute between the Government and myself over proposed new subsection (5)(a); the exclusion of the coal is understood. However, the assessment of the proper market value must take account of the purpose for which the order is made, and the physical effects of the exercise of all the rights, including the operations undertaken on the land. In other words, the assessment of value must take full account of the matters set out in sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the Opencast Coal Act 1958.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Gelling (Mr. Mitchell) is here. The factors set out in our proposed subsection (4)(b) would be taken into account by operators seeking access by negotiation, as they are supposed to do in the free and open market. To exclude such provisions will again disadvantage those who are subject to an order for the use of their land. We suggest that in an ideal world the Government's proposed subsection (5)(b) should be deleted.
6 pm
Lords amendment No. 38 is most important. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have said that compulsory rights orders would be available only in the last resort and that an operator would have to show that an owner of an interest in the land had been unreasonable in refusing to negotiate the terms he had sought. There has been no requirement on an operator for him to show that there is a need for the coal under the land. The wish to work the coal appears to be enough.
The basis for compulsory rights orders is partly set out in the Coal Authority explanatory note. Amendment No. 38 seeks to impose strict conditions on the power to grant a compulsory rights order. Most important is the need to show that the relevant coal is needed to fill a market that cannot be met from elsewhere. If there is no need for a deposit of coal to be worked other than to profit the coal mining company, it cannot be right for any person to have

his interest in the occupation of the surface confiscated from him. If there is no need for the coal and access cannot be negotiated, the company should look elsewhere.
If the Government cannot accept the amendment, surely it would be right to firm up the policy set out on page 29 of the explanatory note to make it clear that the powers are of last resort and that there is a duty on the operator to show that it would be reasonably necessary for the coal to be worked. It should be made clear that the owner can take all such steps as would normally be taken to obtain security in the performance of the obligations under the CRO.
Those are important issues which have not been set out adequately or clearly by the Government during the passage of the Bill. For the future benefit of those affected or those involved in the coal mining industry, these matters should be spelt out in the Bill or in the explanatory note. As my parting shot, I invite the Minister to see whether he can apply his mind and those of his officials to the need to firm up the explanatory note to make matters clearer. It is not my job to embarrass the Government and I do not intend to force my difficulties or dissensions to the vote. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind the landed interests of this country. They are the bedrock, in so many respects, of the Conservative party.

Mr. Redmond: When speaking on an earlier amendment, the Minister said that he had heard it all before, time and again. He could probably say the same about Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38. However, if he had taken heed of what was said earlier, there would not have been so many Lords amendments. The tragedy is that the Government have refused to listen to Opposition Members when they have sought to give guidance and to protect the national interest.
This debate concerns landowners, but does that include people with gardens adjacent to roads that will be blighted as a result of heavy lorries moving along them if planning permission is given?
The Minister said that coal belonged to the nation. That is rich coming from a Government who have sterilised millions of tonnes of coal underground and who appear to be going for opencast, which is environmentally unacceptable. In my constituency, there is a piece of land that may be used for opencast. It is owned by British Coal and rented out to farmers. I would never want that piece of land to be used for opencast, irrespective of any amount of compensation given. The area has been blighted for many years as a result of coal mining activities. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point in relation to the amendments.
We asked earlier about the importation of coal. If we cut coal imports as well as the amount of opencast, there would be less need to talk about compensation as we could go back to extracting coal from the deep mines to which we are geared and for which we have the skills.
What is the interest of the general public? We talk about compensation for landowners, but we do not talk about compensation for the general public who will suffer as a result of the noise and pollution caused by heavy lorries. Will local authorities be compensated as they have to maintain the roads? The side roads and country lanes were not built for heavy vehicles, so they will obviously fall into disrepair. Landowners move from A to B along country lanes, so it is perfectly proper for the Government to consider the depreciation in the standard of roads when opencast takes place.
I thank the Minister for making available to hon. Members the answers to two questions given by one of his ministerial colleagues. I hope that the Minister can clarify the following point. A local authority may have said in its long-term development plan that no opencast extraction will be allowed. Does the answer imply that if the local authority's long-term plan does not include opencast, opencast will be debarred for ever and a day? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. The answer also refers to proper protection for the environment. Does that mean protection for the public who live adjacent to opencast mining sites?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38. The Minister for Local Government and Planning made an announcement, which the Minister for Energy brought to the House. That announcement will be welcomed. I am grateful to the Minister's parliamentary private secretary for circulating copies of the answers displayed upstairs and in the Library at 3.30 pm. We do not yet have the new guidelines but today we have a trailer which deals with the one issue that was extremely controversial. It came up often in debates in which widespread opposition was voiced.
I know that there is also widespread opposition in the country. I have realised, when I have been in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, that the biggest single point that the local community groups campaigning against opencast have always argued is that their local applications should not be decided on a notional definition of the national interest. That point has come out in the advance notice of the guidelines, which we shall get in July. I welcome that.
A nuance in the announcement suggests that the Government did not think that that point altered the basis of planning decisions. I must say, looking at the guidelines as they were before, understanding the way in which inspectors work and seeing the way in which decisions were arrived at, that it was always possible for somebody to say that a national interest was involved, and that it did not matter how environmentally destructive opencast mining was, how good the quality of the agricultural land was or how much it would impact on the villagers. It is like the argument for nuclear power stations. I welcome those guidelines going.
The case for amendments Nos. 37 and 38 has been put simply and I want to reinforce it with two statements of principle and then specifically address the reason why I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, accept the amendments. I realise that he comes here with his brief written by his civil servants, that the President of the Board of Trade has told him to stand by the brief and that his discretion may be limited at this stage. However, I hope that he is a Minister of sufficient longevity in the Department of Trade and Industry—indeed, this may be his last opportunity—to show that he has the authority to throw away the brief and to say, "I have decided that the amendment carried with all-party support in the Lords, and moved from the Cross Benches, is an amendment to support." I challenge the Minister to stand up to the President of the Board of Trade and the civil service and to back the all-party coalition in the other place behind the amendment.
Clearly, the amendment was a good thing. We should remember that somebody could have said, no matter what the owner of the land wanted to do, "We shall override you and insist on the land being used for opencasting." Amendment No. 38 says:
A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that
—there is a second condition—
the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal-mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has required the necessary interests in land, and
—a third condition—
the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes".
There are also alternatives to that. The Government, as has been said from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), in the place of Lord Strathclyde in the other place, effectively said that the position as outlined in the amendment was perfectly reasonable and that they were willing to undertake it. This is another example of Opposition Members trying to hold the position attained by the Lords, which has said that it is not happy with the undertaking, that it wants something written into the Bill, and that it wants it to be clear—hon. Members are saying amen to that.
Those of us who want to see amendment No. 38 retained believe that it is wrong for legislation to permit land to be compulsorily acquired. I heard what the Minister said and I accept, understand and appreciate that we are talking about the land and not about the mineral rights. Ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I came to the House, in 1983—during that time we have both done our spokesmenship jobs on these issues—we have made it absolutely clear that we believe in coal remaining a Crown asset and a national asset and in it not being sold off. So there is no dissent between the Government Front-Bench spokesmen and us on that point.
However, we argue that there should be other conditions. First, one must ensure that, if there has been a reasonable reaction by the owner of the land, if he says that it is needed for agriculture, that there is a long-term agricultural programme or that it is high-grade agricultural land, or if it includes on its edge a site of special scientific interest or is part of an area of outstanding natural beauty, that should be taken into account.
6.15 pm
Secondly, and most importantly—this is where we reach the national test from the other side—a compulsory rights order cannot be permitted when the argument is made that the land is not needed for opencasting because the market can be met from other sources. The argument that has been made over and again from this side of the House and that was made in the previous debate from the Tory Benches—

Mr. Eggar: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that precise wording "met from other sources" could mean from imports? Therefore, since all grades of coal can be imported, the effect of the amendment which he is supporting would be that compulsory rights orders could never, in practice, be implemented.

Mr. Hughes: The answer to the Minister's specific question is yes, of course it means from imports. When his


noble Friend in the other place said that he gave an undertaking that that was, indeed, the attitude that the Government would adopt, he clearly believed that that was a valid position to take. The debate in Nottinghamshire, in south Yorkshire, south of Leeds or in west Glamorgan, or in other places, about opencast mining would be relevant if the question was whether they would prefer the land to be ripped up or the coal to be imported. If that is the debate, let us have it.
Of course, it has to be a market which cannot be met adequately from other sources. For example, the best anthracite coal is from the Betws colliery in south-west Wales. Therefore, it could not be met adequately from other sources because the best source of that quality of coal is underground coal from an underground pit. If the planning inspector or the adjudicator were asked to rule—

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister shakes his head, but that is exactly the case. One could have an evaluation of whether it was possible that the coal could be provided from elsewhere. The argument, put simply, is that it is often in the interests of the exploiter—the company—to go in and take opencast coal. However, first, there are plenty of pits underground which we ought to be using before that; secondly, opencast produces little work and little employment; and, thirdly, it results in such environmental destruction that often, for decades if not for ever, that countryside cannot be returned to its original quality and state.
The argument about whether we have deep-mined coal, imported coal or opencast coal involves the way in which we protect acres and entire sectors of the country from being at risk, as they still are, from opencasting. We know, because British Coal has made no secret about it, that ii has designs on huge amounts of remaining open land in certain areas of the country. The plans are there, many of us have seen them and we know how many parts of our country are under threat. We believe that, to protect what was accepted in the House on both sides—I repeat on both sides—and by many Conservative Members, which was pushed almost to the point of rebellion, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan said, in the hope that it would be won in the Lords, we must accept the amendment. One of the most destructive forms of environmental degradation, endorsed by the Select Committees, is opencast mining. We either have to say that we believe in a mining industry and in supporting it and use the existing mining resources or we say that we are not worried about environmental destruction and, therefore, it may all be opencast in future.
The Government have gone far enough down the road of closing the pits and of not making use of the best assets that exist underground. Some of us want the Government to be firm and to say that they are prepared further to countenance that, as an alternative, the country be left open to rape, ravage and violation—often, it cannot be put right—in the interests of cheap coal. I urge the Minister to use his authority, to stand up for the environment and to ensure, at last, that we support what was agreed on both sides of the House in the other place a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall be extremely brief and I shall try to confine my remarks to within two or three minutes. I declare an interest, as a

member of the Country Landowners Association, that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the land in which I have an interest is coal-bearing.
Obviously, I support the principle of privatisation, but if anyone is in any doubt at all about the sheer devastation of the countryside that opencast mining can cause, he should look at the speech made in the other place by Viscount Ridley, who spelled the position out very clearly. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also touched on that point.
As for coal supply, when there is an emergency such as a war, it is obvious that we must have an Act like the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1918, and that of 1920. Unfortunately, those measures were incorporated into the Opencast Coal Act 1958. As the Minister has said, compulsory powers have rarely been used by either the Coal Board or British Coal. I am therefore extremely surprised to see them being made available to the private sector. While huge devastation to the countryside might be acceptable at a time of national crisis or when there is a critical coal shortage, it is certainly not acceptable when there is a world surplus in coal. Furthermore, the production of coal does not need special compulsory powers any more than the production of any other mineral.
The Minister in another place talked about the last resort and negotiations. When negotiations are taking place between a private operator and a landlord or a farmer, how can those negotiations be free and fair when, as Viscount Ridley pointed out, there is the sword of Damocles—the compulsory rights order—hanging over the landlord? Can the Minister comment on that?
I am concerned about the five-year period for the operation of the compulsory rights order. Surely, when a time scale is put on such an operation, there is frenetic activity during the last few months or weeks of the operation. The danger is that some of the larger private mining operators, such as Budge and Hanson, will want to ensure that they get the areas of potential opencast mining sorted out. There may well be intense negotiations, which would not be free and fair.
We are talking about a fundamental principle. Whereas it might make sense for compulsory powers to be vested in the state vis-a-vis a private operator, surely it does not make sense that those compulsory powers be carried over to a private operator. An important principle is at stake. The Lords amendments recognised—reluctantly—that compulsory rights orders could continue, but they wanted to tilt the balance more in favour of landowners. That is why I am sympathetic to them, and that is why I would like the Minister to answer those specific points.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have participated in previous debates on opencast mining. I have said this before and I shall say it again: it does not matter what the Government do—they intend to dig as much opencast coal as they can get their hands on, especially in the north-east of England. If one lives in a Tory constituency, or if one is a Tory Member, one may get away with an appeal if one gets the ear of the President of the Board of Trade. However, if one lives in my constituency, which has never won an appeal, or in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) or of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), one cannot win an appeal about opencast mining. Whatever is on the table does not make a blind bit of difference.
In Northumberland, we have applications galore. Indeed, at the last count, the county council had at least 15 applications for opencast mining. It goes beyond the imagination when one thinks that the Government are trying to convince us and the people out there that they are restricting opencast mining. I should like to hear hon. Members talk about the need for coal and the country's coal needs. It is not a question of what the country needs.
I know what the entrepreneurs who want to opencast will do with the coal: they will export it. They will put it on ships. A ship takes opencast coal abroad from my town. That is what the entrepreneurs will do with the coal. They are coming to this country because opencast coal is cheap. That is the idea.
I do not believe for one moment that this or any other amendment will make any difference to opencast mining and the Government's intention to restrict it. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the Government will rape and pillage wherever they can get the coal. Indeed, they would dig up my back garden if they thought that they could make a quick buck. That is the trouble with the Government.
I shall refer briefly to Ellington colliery because it has been mentioned with regard to deep mining. Ellington is the only colliery left in the north-east. We hope that it will reopen. We think that it will because the entrepreneurs have made a bid for not only the colliery but the opencast that surrounds the colliery. That raises a good question.
At present, Ellington colliery has two faces that could be manned and in production within a fortnight. Another face could be won out quickly and away within a matter of months. We also have the undersea reserves and the Amble seam with millions of tonnes of reserves. I must ask the entrepreneurs who are bidding for the colliery and the Minister whether the Amble seam will be developed. Will it simply be a case of raping the colliery, selling off its assets and then handing over the opencast mine so that it can be used, as was the original intention? If that is the case, it would be much better to shut the colliery and pull it to the ground, as the Government have done with every other colliery. That is what I believe the Government and the entrepreneurs are about. In Northumberland, all they are interested in is opencast mining—I shall be proved right before too long.

Mr. Hardy: I shall try to be brief, not least because the Minister has heard me speak on this subject on numerous occasions. However, there are some important points to make.
In the coalfield areas, there is bitterness because coal will be locked away for ever and our pits closed prematurely when two or three miles away someone will come along and make a considerable nuisance of himself on an opencast mining project that might take 10 years. We are talking about huge civil engineering exercises.
I have supported, and will continue to support, opencast mining where the dereliction that it causes does not present an appalling nuisance to people who happen to live in close proximity to the site. Any hon. Members who look at areas to the east of Sheffield will see some superb sites which have been opencast for the benefit of the local community. The exercise did not cause an enormous nuisance to the community.
In some parts of the country—my area is one—there are attractive green-field areas and substantial coal reserves which are accessible for opencast mining. However, opencast mining can take place in those areas only if it causes an enormous nuisance to people in the vicinity. We are talking about the capacity to go very deep. I believe that the deepest opencast mining site in the British Isles today is about 850 ft. Such a project must operate on a considerable scale and exist for perhaps 10 years. After the war, there were opencast mining schemes in my area which went down to 250 ft. We marvelled at that; we used to go and look at them. The area looks rather nice 50 years later, but farmers cannot grow root crops there. The range of agricultural activity is still, and will for ever be, restricted. I discussed this matter with farmers in my constituency only a couple of weeks ago.
I must ask the Minister to go a little further about the parliamentary answer that we were kindly given this afternoon. We have been given an assurance that such schemes will not go ahead unless they are environmentally acceptable—but environmentally acceptable to whom? Reference has been made to landowners, but who has made reference to local residents? If a landowner in my constituency decides that he will not sell his land or allow opencast mining to take place in response to the representations of his neighbours, who do not want to bear the banging, noise, nuisance and dust of an opencast operation, will he be regarded as acting unco-operatively or unreasonably?

Mr. Ian McCartney: Some of the landowners in my constituency are trying to use opencast as part of the set-aside scheme that the Ministry of Agriculture operates. Opencasting is being promoted as a way of filling the quota of arable land taken out of production. Despite opposition from the whole community, opencasting will be allowed on green belt land. It is a serious problem, in which Government Departments are colluding so as to obtain benefits under the common agricultural policy. In that collusion, environmental matters are put completely to one side and the short-term gains from reaching targets for set-aside are put first. Unless the Minister gives a clear commitment that inspectors will not be allowed to use set-aside as an excuse, there will be large-scale, long-term opencasting in areas of high agricultural production for the purposes of taking land out of agricultural production at the expense of the environment and the community.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that I was able to give my hon. Friend the opportunity to make that point. I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not allow people to gain a double benefit by obtaining a set-aside grant as well as money from opencast mining. That would seem to be a fairly simple thing and one which even this Government could control.
My hon. Friend might like to know that during the Minister's speech the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly gave out the answer to a question of enormous significance. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I again ask the Minister what is meant by the phrase "environmentally acceptable"? Does it mean what I hope that it means? Does it mean that the project has to be environmentally acceptable to the local community and the local authority? Does it mean that the Minister will no


longer overturn local authority planning refusals for opencast mining? I am delighted by this development. I wonder whether there is a slight chance that the suggestion that I made in Committee had some influence.
At the time of the Committee proceedings and subsequently, I contacted the British Geological Survey and asked a number of questions to establish where coal reserves were. I wanted to point out that opencast mining might not be entirely restricted to existing coalfields in future. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) blandly said that there was no coal in Norfolk. However, there are coal reserves along, and close to, the Norfolk coast. I am not sure where the boundary of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is, but perhaps he will not be there to defend it should someone come along to extract the coal.
I must tell the Minister that I took great care to find out whether there was any coal in the area around the home or constituency of the President of the Board of Trade. If there was, a number of people might be eager to set up a company, to be known as the Henley Opencast Mining Company, and to apply to Henley local authority to serve a compulsory purchase order on the President of the Board of Trade so that he could have the opportunity to experience the dust, noise and degradation that might well follow that exercise.
Unfortunately, at this point, I have been unable to find any viable coal reserves in Henley. However, those researches led me to establish that in the green-field areas in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Oxfordshire and the constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, there are such reserves. Perhaps the Minister's colleagues have taken the view that they had better insert the phrase "environmentally acceptable" in the Bill. I welcome the insertion, but we shall need some clarification from the Minister and his colleagues before very much longer.

Mr. Tipping: Opencasting has been a major theme in the debates on the Coal Industry Bill. I shall return to it briefly. Many of us are worried about the balance between deep-mined coal and opencasting. Perhaps, if I can catch the Minister's eye, he will listen to what the private companies have been telling him. Those companies which have pre-registered have seen the profit in opencasting, but there is a view among the potential private owners that there is no profit to be made from deep-mined coal. They believe that, in the central coalfield perhaps, there is no profit in deep-mined coal and the real profit lies in opencasting. Therefore, some of the private sector companies are falling away. Perhaps the Minister will comment on a rumour which is widespread in the industry that, in the light of that disappointment, documents have been sent out to companies such as Hanson which have not pre-registered. In the past they have not shown an interest, but they are now being encouraged by the Government to buy the industry. Will the Minister confirm or deny that rumour this evening?
I welcome the announcement this afternoon that national interest will not be taken into account in opencasting. That is significant for coal mining areas. It sticks in the craw of people in Nottinghamshire that our pits are being closed down at the same time as permission is being sought for opencast mining in west Nottinghamshire. That is the landscape of the Robinettes sites, the Cossall site and the Moorgreen site, that D.H.

Lawrence loved or, as people put it, made love in. They are important sites which should not be destroyed. I hope that issues surrounding opencasting will be discussed and decisions made at local level rather than at national level.
Given the announcement made this afternoon, why will not the Minister accept Lords amendment No. 38? In the other place Lord Strathclyde said that compulsory rights orders would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. Lords amendment No. 38 defines those circumstances. It limits compulsory rights orders. If the Minister still wants to make friends in coalfield communities, he will accept amendment No. 38.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I wish to make one point which was prompted by what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. He said that we should dig up all the deep-mined coal and worry about opencast coaling afterwards. I must confess to a bias on the matter. When I was Minister for Coal I was alone one day in between Secretaries of State in the Department. I managed with the assistance of the admirable civil servants to sign the orders to liberalise opencasting and increase it to the present level of 250,000 tonnes.
The point I make to all those who argue against opencast coaling is that they should bear in mind that if we are truthful, we will admit that deep-mined coal in Britain, especially if one takes into account the environmental considerations such as the sulphur content and so on, is not truly economic under almost any circumstances compared with imports. That has been the position of the unions for many years. That is the truth of the matter if one takes into account the genuine cost of raising the coal and the total costs associated with doing so.

Mr. Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spicer: In a moment. I wish to make one point. Then I will certainly give way.
The only way in which we can make British Coal in its wider sense competitive is by blending deep-mined coal and opencast coal. That is due to two factors. One is that opencast coal is mined at half the cost of deep-mined coal. The other is that opencast coal is sulphur and chlorine-free and, therefore, a clean form of coal. So if we are to have any competitive coal industry in Britain, there has to be an opencast coal industry.
Amendment No. 38 deals with a fairly marginal matter. Compulsory rights orders are not made very often. Nevertheless, people such as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey hide behind such amendments. They say that it would not matter if we accepted the amendment because what they really want to do is stop opencast coaling. They should be honest.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spicer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Clapham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are closing down collieries that produce at 88p per gigajoule, which is level with market prices? Does he agree that if we opencast for technical reasons such as sweetening because of chlorine content and so on, all that we need is about 5 million tonnes? I use that figure because when the Trade


and Industry Select Committee examined the issue it suggested that opencast mining should be reduced to 10 million tonnes. That was within a market of about 60 million tonnes. We are now down to a market of 30 million tonnes, so all that we require is 5 million tonnes of opencasting. That would mean that we could tackle it in a reasonable manner and not need CROs.

Mr. Spicer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about the details of the costings of British deep-mined coal. Suffice it to say, and without going into too much detail, that those costings are often not very transparent. If one takes, for instance, a pit such as Selby, the way in which the sunk capital is computed into the pricing and costings is very dubious indeed. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would dispute the fact that there are massive hidden costs within the industry which somebody will have to account for one day.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, when he was Minister, we had in the north east of England—if my memory is right—only 17 deep-mined coal pits. At least half of them took in opencast coal, and we did not argue against that. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that it sweetened deep-mined coal. We do not have any deep-mined coal in the north east now but, by God, we have plenty of planning consents for opencast coal at the moment. It is sweetening nothing.

Mr. Spicer: The sweetening point is important, but the other important thing is the financial sweetening. Opencast coaling can be produced on average at half the costs of deep-mined coaling if we take into account the proper costing.
I make my point in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and in support of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is nonsense to say that there should be an amendment which in effect makes a CRO totally impossible—that is what the effect of the amendment would be—because of the undoubted value to this country of opencasting.
An obvious qualification is that it must be done properly from an environmental point of view. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) acknowledged that nowadays, in most cases, the long-term environmental effects of opencast coaling are being properly addressed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made the point that there are occasions when there is an acceptable proposal for opencasting, and there are places in the country where proposals have been accepted.
The debate is that when there is not an acceptability within the local community, there can be a compulsory power to go ahead. In that case, there should be a test asking if there is an alternative. I understand that sometimes opencast coaling is needed, but the community must accept it.

Mr. Spicer: I do not want to prolong the debate, and I do not think that there is much between the hon. Gentleman and I on that point, except to say that there will perhaps be circumstances in which a CRO is appropriate. The

amendment might make it completely impossible to introduce CROs and, for the reasons I have given, I think that that would be a bad thing.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been a massive run-down in the coal industry because of the fix in fuel market prices. It has always been my contention that if arrangements could be fixed, they could be unfixed later.
During the previous Session, I introduced a Bill which would have unfixed the arrangements. If I could do that, I am sure that the Government will be able at some stage to introduce measures which mean that the getting of coal is more economically viable than in the present circumstances. A massive resource exists throughout the country which will lead to fortunes being made by certain people. That will be done by opencast techniques which will have serious environmental consequences, as many hon. Members have stressed.
In my constituency, there is a stark distinction between the western and eastern sections. The western section is a rural area where mining goes back to the 16th century, and there was certainly a great deal of mining in that area in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are massive amounts of coal in that area not far from the surface.
The eastern side is where the pits were shut, and there are no pits left now in Derbyshire. In that area, the disgraceful activity of further opencast developments will take place, and already opencast developments have been accepted in those areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the parliamentary question which we managed to table, and he said that the Minister had kindly supplied us with the answer. I do not look upon the question in quite the same way as that. I think that it is disgraceful that a matter concerning opencasting should have been presented by planted answers.
6.45 pm
It came out at half-past three today, and nobody in the Chamber knew about its existence until the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) scurried along the Benches and dished out the pieces of paper so we could see the answer. I found out about it a little earlier because a Lobby correspondent met me outside the Chamber and asked me what my views were on the press release from the Department of the Environment.
When we have opencast provisions in the Lords amendments, and a whole series of Government amendments, the House should know in advance what the position is. Furthermore, I think that the answer tells us that the final guidance arrangements—the new mineral planning guidance—will be available to us only just before the summer recess. That is not acceptable. The House is considering Lords amendments and the Government's counter-proposals, and an argument is taking place on the planning agreement provision. That has knock-on consequences for what we think should be put forward in the legislation.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I must apologise to the House for the fact that I was called away to an important meeting for the last half hour, and I missed the beginning of this debate.
I think that the impression which might be created that the Opposition are totally opposed to opencast is not accurate. My experience of opencast in my constituency


goes back to the mid-1940s when it was essential to get coal to keep the war effort going. There was no opposition at that time, and it was recognised as a national issue that it was important to get that coal out.
The opencast exercise at that time was very crude. There is a golf course in my constituency which is on the remains of an opencast site which was developed in the 1940s, and it is impossible to play on. It is certainly impossible for me to play on, and I think that the condition of the ground is the problem, and not my playing.
When I was involved in local government in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we had an arrangement in my county council in Northumberland—which probably has the biggest potential opencast field anywhere in Britain—with the then National Coal Board opencast executive and then the British Coal opencast executive where there was a 10-year rolling programme. The executive came to the planning authority with proposals for projects which were 10 years ahead.
We then sat down calmly and talked through the proposition. We adjourned the meeting, and came back after three months to talk about it again. But we had a reasonable and sensible programme based upon the national target throughout those years of 15 million tonnes per year being obtained nationally from opencast. The matter was dealt with reasonably.
Obviously, there were problems. There were complaints and resistance to opencast sites being developed, but in general it worked extremely well. The real problem arose in recent years when freedom was given to almost anybody for opencast sites. One site was developed in my constituency a quarter of a mile from a pharmaceutical factory, and that caused all sorts of problems because of the environmental effects. There was even a mild threat that the factory would close because of the small opencast site.
That is the sort of problem which we are facing at present and which, in my view, will be aggravated by the privatisation of the industry and by the free-for-all which will exist in terms of opencast site development. We shall not have the right balance in terms of local or national interest. It will be a free-for-all and if someone can sell his coal at a lower price than the guy along the road, he will prosper. That is not how I want my county to develop.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted because it will ensure the right proportion of opencast coal mine development.

Mr. Eggar: I seem to spend a lot of time putting to rest scurrilous rumours which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mysteriously hears about and then repeats in the Chamber. His comments have no substance whatever. He knows perfectly well, because I answered a parliamentary question on the matter, how many people have applied for qualification. I assure him that no more information has been sent out to people who have not pre-qualified.
There have been two strands to this debate. First, a number of Opposition Members and one or two of my hon. Friends who have not spoken are basically anti-opencast. They are determined to use whatever mechanism is available to stop whatever opencasting may be contemplated. Secondly, my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate wished, in some way, to give landowners the value of the coal.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for

Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), they recognised the balance and the fact that there is a place for opencasting, given the correct environmental and other controls.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is very much involved in these matters. But it is for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment to expand on the issues which he raised. He kindly recognised the fact that the debate had moved on as a result of the answer to the parliamentary question.
I was surprised at the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). After all, the Government could easily have held this debate without making the announcement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning and I thought that it would assist the House if we made that announcement, even though we could not make the full announcement on MPG3. Hon. Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who has not been present for most of our debates, will recognise that, throughout the discussions in Committee and subsequently, I have been extremely forthcoming with the documents and have always responded to requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It therefore annoys me to hear the churlish response that we have had from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barnes: Could not we have had the answer 24 hours earlier, as that would have provided a framework for our discussion?

Mr. Eggar: The fact is that we had the answer in time for the debate. With the exception of the hon. Gentleman, all hon. Members present welcomed that.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree with the answer in relation to the document that has been discussed?

Mr. Eggar: Of course I agree with the answer given by my hon. Friend.
Some of my hon. Friends argued that more of the value of the coal should, in some way, accrue to the landowners. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has followed this issue carefully. He was, however, less than objective in assessing how the Government have responded to the interests and genuine concerns of landowners. May I spell out exactly what we have done?
The power to initiate CROs no longer lies in the hands of the mining industry. In the future, it will lie in the hands of the Coal Authority. My hon. Friend did not recognise the fact that we have set out the intended policy of the Coal Authority to make CROs only in the last resort and after all reasonable efforts to obtain the landowners' agreement has failed. The Coal Authority will also ensure that any reasonable requirements for appropriate financial security are met. Once that has been done, the orders will be made, subject to confirmation by the relevant Secretaries of State. The Bill also sets out an absolute limit of 31 December 1999 for the continuation of those compulsory rights orders. At the same time, we have announced that we are initiating a comprehensive review of compulsory access powers for all minerals.
As if that were not enough, since the Bill's introduction we have accepted the principle that compensation should be based on market value. We have agreed that there should be notification of all applications for coalmining licences and the transfer of existing licences. We have


introduced a mechanism to ensure that landowners can revert to the operator's best offer, even at the last possible stage, and compensation for non-coal minerals has been given in coalmining operations. So for my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough to say that we are not taking account of landowners' genuine interests is—I am being charitable—not putting the whole debate in context.
On my hon. Friend's comments on the drafting of the Bill, I agree that we should all strive for clear drafting. It is a technical matter that relates back to the 1958 Act. Although its clarity may not be ideal, it is more understandable than my hon. Friend led us to believe.
May I tell my hon. Friend bluntly that the Government have always made it clear that we shall not give the value of the coal to the landlords. The net effect of his amendment is that a significant proportion of the coal's value is likely, as a result of market negotiations, to lie with the landowners. It has always been made clear to my hon. Friend, representatives of the Country Landowners Association and others that we will not do that. I am sorry that he does not accept that, despite the fact that I have explained to him, and again in my opening speech, that that was the effect of his amendment.
I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South about CROs. The absence of any CRO power, ahead of the review of compulsory access powers for all minerals, has the same potential effect in terms of giving additional value to the landowners. We have listened carefully to the landowners' wishes and consulted widely, but we have always drawn a bottom line. We are simply not prepared to go below that line.
I hope that I have dealt with all the issues that arise from the amendments and that we can now move to a Division, should that prove necessary.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 223.

Division No. 274]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bates, Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Bendall, Vivian
Clappison, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim






Richards, Rod
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robathan, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Speed, Sir Keith
Whitney, Ray


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Streeter, Gary



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Church, Judith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cox, Tom


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Berry, Roger
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Burden, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Fraser, John





Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mudie, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Grocott, Bruce
Olner, William


Gunnell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hain, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hodge, Margaret
Prescott, John


Hoey, Kate
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Illsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Jamieson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Janner, Greville
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Keen, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, CS)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Snape, Peter


Khabra, Piara S.
Soley, Clive


Kilfoyle, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Stevenson, George


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAvoy, Thomas
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Macdonald, Calum
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Tyler, Paul


McNamara, Kevin
Vaz, Keith


MacShane, Denis
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Alice
Wicks, Malcolm


Mandelson, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Milburn, Alan



Miller, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Mr. John Cummings and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Morley, Elliot

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 37 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 117, line 29, at end insert—
("Conditions to be satisfied before a compulsory rights order is made
A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that—



(a)(i) the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal-mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has acquired the necessary interests in land, and
(ii) the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the compulsory rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes; or


(b) there is a present likelihood that the coal will remain unworked on account of other development proposed on the relevant land; or
(c) the persons with power to grant the right, or any of them, cannot be ascertained or cannot be found; or
(d) the persons from whom the right must be obtained or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition, whether by reason of defect on title, legal disability or otherwise.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 221.

Division No. 275]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carttiss, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Faber, David


Butcher, John
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butterfill, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Carrington, Matthew
Forman, Nigel





Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorst, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)






Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Austin-Walker, John
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barnes, Harry
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Don (Bath)


Berry, Roger
Fraser, John


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Mildred


Burden, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Harman, Ms Harriet


Chidgey, David
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Church, Judith
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David





Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, CS)
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Redmond, Martin


Khabra, Piara S.
Rendel, David


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milburn, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mudie, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Paisley, Rev Ian



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Cummings and


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the remaining amendments together.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 38: Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Martin O'Neill and Mr. Tim Eggar be members of the Committee; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Eggar.]

To withdraw immediately.

Ports (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
I understand that it will be convenient for the House also to discuss the second motion:
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
The orders reflect provisions already enacted in Great Britain under the Ports Act 1991. It is primarily an enabling measure, designed to offer a more efficient mechanism than currently exists for ports to privatise themselves.
The order would empower any relevant Northern Ireland port authority to submit a privatisation scheme to the Department for approval. The scheme would transfer all the property, rights, liabilities and functions of the port's undertaking to a successor company formed under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
The order would provide powers for the Department to initiate a privatisation scheme for a port with an annual turnover of £5 million, index-linked, which has not itself submitted such a scheme within two years of enactment of the order.
It would require the port authority to pay the Government a 50 per cent. levy on the sales proceeds and it would empower the Department to vary the levy percentages on any gains from the disposal of land within 10 years of privatisation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Reverting to the point the Minister made earlier, why is such a scheme not subject to an affirmative order in the House, as it is for the privatisation of trusts in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Smith: Because it would conflict with the constitutional position of the Assembly. It would create a difficult constitutional precedent. It requires an affirmative resolution of the Assembly, but here it would have to be subject to a negative resolution. In practice, if the Opposition were to pray against it at the appropriate time, there would be a debate in the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Opposition spokesman has raised a fairly crucial point. Perhaps we could return to it on Thursday, when we debate the renewal of direct rule. We shall be debating and voting on the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I hope that it is the ambition of the House to get rid of the 1974 Act as soon as possible.

Mr. Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that I have described the current position accurately.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I apologise for interrupting the Minister so early, but could he help the blissfully naive? He referred to 50 per cent. of the proceeds being clawed back by the Government. Who gets the other 50 per cent.?

Mr. Smith: The other 50 per cent. goes to the company. That follows the position in Great Britain, so that half the proceeds would go to the Treasury and, subject to any costs

which would be deducted first, and subject to any possible capital gains tax, half the proceeds would go to the company. That would be one incentive for privatisation.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister telling us that, if a company bids £50 million, or whatever the going rate for a port may be, they would have to pay only £25 million to the Government?

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his question, as I did not understand it?

Mr. Robinson: If only 50 per cent. of the money from a private company purchasing the port goes to the Government, the other 50 per cent. effectively goes into the company's coffers. If a company bid £50 million, it would pay only £25 million to the Government.

Mr. Smith: Because there is no beneficial owner of the trust ports—the Trustee Savings bank is in the same position—the proceeds would go to the company, which would take that into account in deciding its bid. The position of trust ports in Northern Ireland is the same as it is for trust ports in the whole United Kingdom; there is absolutely no difference.
Finally, the order would provide powers to reimburse the costs incurred by a management-employee buy-out team in mounting a bid for the port undertaking.
The Department would issue guidelines for voluntary privatisation under the order. Those guidelines would provide that, in framing their objectives, ports should have regard to
the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to managers or other persons employed by the company.
While the guidelines will be concerned primarily with privatisation by trade sale, other methods are not ruled out. However, any such proposals must be agreed by the Department.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned functions to be carried out by the successor companies that are now carried out by the authorities. On the important activity of dredging, will a statutory obligation be placed on the successor companies to continue that function?

Mr. Smith: I shall check on that point. I think that the successor companies will inherit the responsibilities of the trust boards. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a full reply at the end of the debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for being so courteous in giving way to so many interventions. I assure him that the issue I am about to raise is the only one that concerns me, so I shall not trouble him further.
All the ports in southern Ireland are being stuffed with EC funding and subsidies. Does my hon. Friend believe that a private port company would have the same eligibility for EC funding as a public authority? That is an important issue in terms of competition between the north and the south.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point. Currently, trust ports qualify for up to a maximum of 75 per cent. European regional development fund funding. In the private sector, that entitlement would be reduced to 50 per cent. It is an extremely important issue


when considering the benefits of privatisation. [AN HON MEMBER: "Which the Government will ignore."] I shall deal with that sedentary intervention, although I have been quite good at giving way to those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to stand up. We shall consider all the factors at the relevant time. As I have made clear, it is an extremely important consideration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not amazing that, because the EC has been prepared to give a larger grant to a company controlled by the Government, it is now prepared to give those larger grants to Government-controlled operations in the south? The south is moving towards Government-controlled companies just to get EC money, whereas our Government are moving away from that. In doing so, they will prevent money that we pay into Europe from being returned to us.
Surely, as a Conservative believing in private enterprise, the Minister should realise that the EC is actually opposing competition and the very philosophy in which he believes. Rather than doing what he proposes tonight, he should keep the ports as they are in order to get back our money from Europe.

Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not see any rationale in distinguishing between businesses that happen to be publicly owned—and giving them a larger grant—and those that happen to be privately owned. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He identified what is undoubtedly an extremely important consideration. Obviously, I believe that considerable benefits would accrue from privatisation. However, he raised an important factor that must be considered at the relevant time.
As in Great Britain, the underlying policy of the order is essentially one of voluntary privatisation, although it does provide the Department with compulsory powers to require ports with a turnover limit of £5 million index-linked to bring forward privatisation schemes if they have not done so within two years of enactment. As I am sure the House appreciates, at present the only relevant Northern Ireland port in that category is Belfast.
I can inform the House that I received more than 50 formal responses during the consultation process, none of which has necessitated any change to the order. Some concern was expressed about the possible impact of the privatisation of the port of Belfast. I must again emphasise that this order is purely enabling legislation and does not implement the privatisation of Belfast or, indeed, any other port in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am interested in the Minister's point about the order being enabling. Did not the hon. Gentleman say this morning that this was a privatisation Bill? Therefore, his remarks now about it being an enabling measure conflict with the point he made this morning. Will he now clarify the position?

Mr. Smith: If I remember rightly, what I said on television this morning was that this is a privatisation measure, which it clearly is because it facilitates the privatisation of the trust ports. It will enable privatisation to take place. Within the next two years it will be open to the Belfast harbour commissioners, if they so decide, to put forward a scheme for privatisation. Only after two years had elapsed would the Department consider the possibility

of compulsory privatisation. That is the position. The measure does not give us the authority to compel the privatisation of the port of Belfast.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way to so many interventions. He has compared this order with the 1991 legislation for Great Britain. How many ports have operated under that legislation? What steps have the Government taken to try to compel those who have not turned to privatisation to do so?

Mr. Smith: I am not sure of the exact position in Great Britain. I do not know whether the Department of Transport has required any particular privatisation scheme. I shall investigate and answer the point at the end of the debate. We may have reached the point where it would be open to the Department to do so, but I shall find out and provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. I think that the answer will be none.
As I explained, no such decision could be taken until two years after enactment of the order, and only then following consultation with both the port authority and interested parties, and detailed consideration of the implications of privatisation. If, after two years, and after consultation with the port authority, the Department decides not to use its compulsory powers, those powers will cease to be exercisable for a further period of five years.
I commend both the orders to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think that I have ever heard such a short speech justifying such an arrant bank robbery of the people of Northern Ireland as the one we have just heard from the Minister. Because the order has remained below the line for such a long time, I had hoped that the Government would retreat from such a foolish and senseless course. Such a retreat would have been welcomed by all who are concerned with or work in the port. The Government have united opposition from those who work in Belfast harbour, from all the main political parties in Northern Ireland and from the vast majority of people living and working in Belfast and across the region.
Hon. Members have already pointed out the unsatisfactory way in which the measure is being introduced—as compared with what is happening in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Although the problems of an Assembly may be real, they should not take away from the Government the onus on them to introduce and justify their proposals. They should leave it to the Opposition to pray against the order. The Government should find a way of introducing their proposal in their own time.
The undemocratic nature of compulsory privatisation without debate, as exemplified by this procedure, is typical of the Government's cavalier attitude to this matter.

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has rightly criticised the undemocratic nature of the procedure that is being used. Will he therefore vote against the interim period extension order on Thursday? That would cure the problem because, if the provision were not extended, we should again have democratic procedures in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman tempts me too much. I should be delighted if the powers went to a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland—when that is agreed among all the parties and both Governments with a strong internal settlement and even stronger cross-border institutions.
One of the senior executives of Belfast harbour commission described the procedures thus:
Overall, one has to view privatisation as Tory dogma. If we assume that privatisation is not a good thing, the next thing you would bump into would be that the Government has a power compulsorily to privatise you.
If the harbour commissioners do not volunteer to commit suicide, they will be put down painlessly two years later.
At a time when the Government are rightly encouraging inward investment in Northern Ireland, there is a real possibility that one of Northern Ireland's indigenous profit-making organisations will be sold—possibly taken out of Ireland's control, and possibly even sold to a foreign purchaser, unless the Government say that they will prevent it.
Let me explain the broader significance of the port of Belfast to Northern Ireland's economy. Fifty-five per cent. of all imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland pass through the port of Belfast. The port thus provides not only employment and a degree of economic stability for the Greater Belfast area but a central focus for investment and employment throughout the region. Given the peripheral nature of Northern Ireland in relation to the United Kingdom, its ports provide a vital trade and tourism link between the island of Ireland and the rest of the European Community.
Northern Ireland, however, is in a unique position. Individual ports in the region not only compete with each other but face severe competition from ports in the Republic. It is against what is already a fiercely competitive background that the Government seek to privatise the port of Belfast—and, in doing so, have again decided to apply ideological dogma rigidly rather than following economic common sense.
The Government claim that the aim of the order is to improve effectiveness and efficiency, but they do not propose to privatise the most inefficient and ineffective ports in Northern Ireland; instead, they are forcing the sell-off of the most profitable of those ports, which has a turnover of at least £5 million. There could be no clearer illustration of the Government's real motives. They are not interested in the future of the region's dock industry, but they are eager to get their hands on substantial returns from the port of Belfast to cut the Treasury's deficit and put fat profits into the hands of their political and industrial friends.
That was brought out brilliantly by an intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who asked what would happen to the other 50 per cent. It is a case of "Bid us a price, and we will give you half your money back": it is a Dutch auction. The money is going back to a company, and thence to private shareholders—money that has been raised by the harbour commissioners, and by the effort and integrity of a non-profit-making organisation to bring about the most efficient port in the north of Ireland. By "non-profit-making" I mean that it does not distribute its profits, but reinvests them in its own industry. All that money will be lost.
It would be ironic if, for example, one of Northern Ireland's main competitors in the Republic successfully

took over the port of Belfast. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) drew attention to the position of ports in the Republic. Northern Ireland's ports have drawn considerably away from those in the republic, but in the event of privatisation and the consequential increase in charges, that traffic will almost certainly be lost back to ports in the south.
At present, about a third of traffic going through the port of Belfast comes from the Republic. Ports in the Republic receive full support from the European Community, and—as has been pointed out—as a result of the decision to give them semi-state body status, that aid looks set to continue. Because of the cohesion fund, it is likely to amount to up to 75 per cent., and may rise even further.
The Government are deliberately, specifically and directly forcing the port of Belfast to face increased competition from the Republic—from ports that will be increasingly subsidised to enable them to make their affairs more efficient and invest more in their own infrastructure. They propose to sell off a profitable, efficient port that is gaining traffic from all over Ireland: they are prepared to see that traffic lost.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As a respected democrat, is the hon. Gentleman not genuinely worried about the EC sabotaging the Conservative principle of privatisation by exercising such discrimination in regard to grants? I accept that, as always, his views are sincere; does he not think it ridiculous that the EC should have a policy that discriminates wholly against Conservative policy, and may prevent us from doing what we wish to do?

Mr. McNamara: I have no problems with discrimination against Conservative policy—and if I am not worried about it, I do not see why the Community should be. I am prepared to see more and more money going into public infrastructure: that is why I want to keep the port of Belfast in the public sector. It works efficiently and effectively as it is.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that, if the port is privatised, charges will immediately rise and a great deal of business will be lost to the Republic. How does he account for the success of the port of Lame, which is already privately owned?

Mr. McNamara: Regular fast catamarans carry people to and fro across a 16-mile strip of water, but the port of Larne cannot take the shipping that the port of Belfast can take.

Mr. Roy Beggs: As the Member of Parliament representing the port of Lame, I assure the hon. Gentleman that as yet we have no catamarans running; but we have a very efficient ferry service. It is easier to get a boat to Scotland than to get a bus to some of the outlying villages. It is the regularity and reliability of a competitively priced service that makes the port of Larne attractive.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that an effective road system is needed to increase the attraction still further. I was disappointed that he left that out.
The port of Belfast has enjoyed substantial financial assistance from the European regional development fund transport programme, which has enabled it to keep several steps ahead of its competition in the Republic. That,


however, will be lost. During the past five years, a combination of substantial European funding and investment from its own funds has produced a £100 million port fund in Belfast, which has significantly improved the port's infrastructure and, consequently, its competitive edge. The facilities are new and modern; they are a testament to the sound management and astute business practice of the current Belfast harbour commissioners. However, the privatisation of the port—like the privatisation of Aldergrove airport—raises the question of the clawback of EC funds totalling approximately £60 million.
The Minister will recall that, at the time of the airports order, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) drew his attention to a letter from the European Commissioner, Bruce Millan. In effect, the letter stated that the question of clawback could arise in the event of the privatisation of the international airport. I must warn the Minister that the advice that we have received from the Commission about the privatisation of the port of Belfast is the same as that offered at the time of the Aldergrove sell-off. The EC may well decide to reclaim aid that was granted towards the development of the port's infrastructure in the ERDF programme; it may be especially encouraged to do that when told that half the purchase price is going back to the person who bought it.
Far from enhancing the port's effectiveness and competitiveness by privatising it, the Minister will prevent any further development of port infrastructure by means of EC funding. Meanwhile, the port's major competitors in the Republic will continue to enjoy all the benefits of European aid.
The order has a further worrying aspect, which is linked to infrastructure development and the ownership of the harbour estate. As a consequence of successful development across the estate, the port of Belfast now has a host of major and minor industrial tenants, including Shorts Bombadier, Harland and Wolff and many others. All the companies that located in the estate did so in the knowledge that the site had a good record for constantly developing and improving its infrastructure, and that the trust port arrangement ensured the existence of fair rents and leases. The Government's plans, however, leave the estate open to those who might seek to exploit the peripheral nature of the region.
The island of Ireland will be the only part of Europe that is wholly dependent on the use of ports for bulk import and export to and from the rest of the European Community. Consequently, if the new owners so wish, the estate can be left to run down on ever-increasing rents and leases. If short-term profit is the only motivating factor, why should the new owners make long-term costly investment. in the infrastructure of the port? Thanks to the European taxpayer, the new private owners of the port of Belfast will be presented with a highly profitable concern.
What will consequently become of the development plans following the building of the new £10 million link road on the County Down side? That link is helping to develop an additional 200 acres of estate and should bring an additional 5,000 new jobs, increasing the total Belfast harbour estate work force to about 22,000. In an area where jobs are desperately needed, the gamble that the Government are taking with that future investment is clearly unacceptable.
The plans contained within the order jeopardise significant future investments in the harbour estate and

with them the possibility of getting some of Northern Ireland's jobless back to work. There is less chance of a harbour rail link if we have to depend on private investment in order to achieve it rather than having public investment, possibly backed up by EC funds.
Let me deal now with ownership and accountability. The Minister will know that the regulations under which trust ports operate currently place the responsibility of care on the various statutory authorities that control the ports on behalf of and in the interest of the people serviced by the port. The regulations ensure that the harbour operates in the broadest interests of the wider community who benefit from long-term employment and investment prospects. The regulations further ensure that businesses are encouraged into the harbour industrial estate with fair charging and equal treatment in the allocation of berths and other port facilities. In short, the current regulations under which trust ports operate ensure that the long-term interests of the port and the estate prevail.
That formula has proved to be successful in the outstanding performance of the port of Belfast. Consequently, the Government should ensure that predatory ownership, particularly by companies in other member states, is not possible. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to retain a golden share in the port as they did with Belfast international airport? Would such a golden share be used to prevent investment by companies outside the United Kingdom?
Currently, all the profits made in the dock are reinvested in the estate. Money is raised in Ireland through the productivity of the people of Northern Ireland, and the profits are utilised for the benefit of the asset and the Northern Ireland economy. It is those very profits that are now to be used as an inducement to the potential purchaser. Those profits are all the incentive a predator needs to purchase the land bank. Thereafter, there is no incentive for any purchaser to improve on or invest in the infrastructure for the future. That is partly because the infrastructure is now very good and partly because purchasers can just sit there for 10 years, after which there is no levy and no clawback. Some of the richest land in Belfast, certainly some of that most ripe for development, will go to whoever purchases, at 50 per cent. of its face value, the new asset.
The people of Northern Ireland will have lost and the asset stripper will have gained a fast profitable return. Who might some of the predators be? Will it be the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, creating a monopoly in crossings to and from Liverpool? Will it be P and O, creating a monopoly with the port of Lame? Whoever else wishes to purchase the port of Belfast, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House today that the first option, if the Government go ahead with the sale, will be a management-employee buy-out and not a trade sale? Will he give an undertaking to the House that that will be the first thing that they will consider? That would at least ensure that a genuine commitment to the future of the port and to the Northern Ireland economy survived privatisation. That is very much a second best, however; things should be left as they are. As things stand now, there is a real danger of profit created in Northern Ireland being exported and creamed off; it could be just another example of absentee landlordism.
It seems that the success of the port of Belfast is not enough to curtail the Minister's zealous hunger for the notion of privatisation, even when the object of the Government's desire is operating competitively and


efficiently. This debate, as with others on Northern Ireland Electric and Aldergrove airport, will expose the Government's privatisation plans in Northern Ireland for what they really are—plans to stuff the Treasury with money and to sell off assets to their friends.
The debate will show how belated, ill-judged and inappropriate attempts to keep pace with the discredited sell-off of assets throughout other parts of the United Kingdom during the 1980s are now being followed again in Northern Ireland. I very much regret the fact that Ministers feel that they must prove their ideological purity by indulging in this foolish measure.
Above all, we are seeing a trust established by the people of Belfast—the users of the port—pass out of the control of Northern Ireland. The trust has been developed by the people of Northern Ireland. It has developed an infrastructure and a going concern of considerable efficiency, but now the moneys generated by it are likely to be passed out of Northern Ireland. There is a real chance that charges will be increased and that the port will lose its competitive edge against the improved infrastructure within the Republic. Is that really what the Government think is sound economic sense? The Government are engaged in a foolish process. They are playing dangerously with the jobs and opportunities of people who work within the dock estate, and with the whole basis of Northern Ireland's economy.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I cannot recall how long it has been since I followed a speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) with my blood pressure as settled as it is now. I am pleased that we shall be fighting in the same corner this evening.
On the face of it, the draft statutory instrument appears simply to place upon the port the ability, if it so wishes, to consider putting forward a proposal for privatisation. In reality, when the order becomes law it will pave the way for privatisation and will put Belfast port, to which the order essentially applies, on the slips to be sold off—some might say sold out.
Before I deal with the content of the order, I should like to raise two issues. The Minister referred to the consultation process. He told the House that he had received more than 50 responses. I very much regret the unhealthy arrogance that he showed by saying that the 50-plus responses did not require the slightest change in the measure. That is in effect what he told a number of hon. Members at the beginning of January when he said that he did not consider that any changes were required to the order.
Will the Minister tell us how many of the 54 responses that he received—I believe that that is the correct number—supported the Government's action? Does he consider those most directly involved in the port to be among the supporters of the measure? Do the harbour commissioners support him? Are they cheering him on? Does he have the support of all the trade unions in the port? Does he have the support of the shipping agencies in the port? Does he have the support of all the other users of the land site of the port? It is worth providing a breakdown of the 54 responses so that we know how many support the Minister and how many oppose the order.
The second issue is a procedural matter about which I spoke earlier. The Minister will recognise that when similar legislation was proposed for the mainland under the Ports Act 1991 the same provision applied to ports on the mainland. If within a two-year period they wished to put forward a proposal for privatisation to the Department, the measure could be dealt with directly on their suggestion. If they failed to make a proposal within two years, the Government could proceed to privatise the port, but in those circumstances the Government were required to table an affirmative resolution in the House. In the case of Northern Ireland, however, the Government will have to table not an affirmative resolution but a negative resolution. If the wisdom of the harbour commissioners is such that, after two years, they recognise that privatisation is not in the interests of Belfast and Northern Ireland, the Department can step in and determine that the port should be privatised. The House will have no opportunity to debate the matter.
I wrote to the Minister on the issue, and he replied:
If…the Belfast Harbour Commissioners failed to come forward with a scheme within the first 2 years, the Government would at that stage have to decide whether it wished to invoke the reserve powers and enforce the privatisation of the Port. Of course, such a decision would only be taken after detailed consultations with the port authority and with all other interested parties".
We are aware of the Minister's approach to detailed consultation, so I shall avoid making any comment about that. He does not believe that such consultation requires his attention, but his response suggested that there would be consultation with all other interested parties. Surely Parliament is an interested party. Surely it has the right to debate such matters. It is not good enough for the Minister to say in his letter that
in the event of a prayer against such an order the Government would consider any request to have the matter debated on the floor of the House.
I urge the Minister to go a little further and to give a firm undertaking that if a prayer is tabled he will ensure that the matter is considered by the House.
It is sleight of hand to refer to the order as enabling legislation. As it affects only Belfast port, the Minister will understand if I concentrate on the Belfast harbour commissioners. The Minister clearly intends to reduce the number of seats on the Belfast harbour commission and to retain the power to appoint future commissioners. If a commissioner does not toe the line and is not pro-privatisation, the Minister can turf him out and arrange for the right people to be appointed. The Government have decided to privatise Belfast port. Referring to the measure as enabling legislation is a con trick, a sleight of hand and an act of trickery to ensure that the order is passed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that this is not a trifling matter but a serious issue that is important to the Northern Ireland economy. Naturally, it most closely affects the Belfast constituencies and I trust that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) will join us before the end of the debate and vote against the order, which will seriously affect his and my constituents and other hon. Members who represent Belfast.
The Northern Ireland economy will be affected by the proposal. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, more than half of the imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland come through Belfast port. When the channel tunnel becomes operational, the


Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are the two parts of the European Community that will be isolated. Bulk imports and exports will be shipped to and from the main ports of Dublin and Belfast.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that the draft order will result in poorer services and in dearer prices.

Mr. Tim Smith: Why?

Mr. Robinson: The Minister asks why. Less public finance—if one can call European Community funds public finance—will be allocated to Belfast port, so it will have to spend more money from its reserves. It will have to put up prices to meet the difference between what its competitors in Dublin receive in grants and what it receives. It will need more finance, and more finance through expenditure automatically requires higher prices.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the current charges have been set in a highly competitive market, as everyone who has spoken in the debate has agreed? There is healthy competition among the ports in the island of Ireland and, in the face of that, no port would increase its prices. Prices are set by the market.

Mr. Robinson: I hope that the Minister has now got it. He is making Belfast port uncompetitive and leaving it in a competitive market. It will not be able to compete because its main competitor, the port of Dublin, will grab all the EC funding at a much higher rate and will be much more competitive. Belfast port has the choice of putting up its prices or going out of business, so what will it do? It will put up its charges, to the detriment of the Northern Ireland economy. Belfast port is in a unique position. It already faces considerably more competition than ports on the mainland not only from other Northern Ireland ports but from Republic of Ireland ports.
The proposal is based on the Government's philosophy of privatisation. I do not take a doctrinaire view for or against privatisation. I was involved in pushing competitive tendering and privatisation before Thatcherism was popular, although it did not end up being very popular. Privatisation worked where I applied it because it was recognised that it would not work in all circumstances. It was necessary, therefore, to consider how it would work in commercial terms, in terms of jobs and in terms of the economy. When one applies those terms to the port, one finds that privatisation brings no advantage to Belfast port.
The Government have argued that privatisation takes the weight off the taxpayer meeting the costs of failing industries, but Belfast port is a success. It does not require handouts from the Government to meet its running costs or capital investment programme. The usual Tory line that propped-up, failing industries require the breath of privatisation does not apply to Belfast port. In the House of Lords, the Government spokesman said:
The Government have consistently taken the view that the privatisation of the larger trust ports is an important element of the long-term strategy of opening up the ports industry to market forces."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 1991; Vol. 531, c. 348.]
The Northern Ireland trust ports, however, are already subject to market forces via competition either from Larne and elsewhere or from the Republic of Ireland. So that argument does not apply to the Northern Ireland ports.
It should be pointed out that the trade war—if such it may be called—between the ports of the Republic and those of Northern Ireland is being won by Northern Ireland. Between a quarter and one third of the imports and exports currently passing through Belfast port are for the Republic of Ireland, which shows that a significant slice of the Republic's trade passes in and out through Belfast.
Privatisation will not sharpen up a failing industry; the industry is already successful. I therefore ask: is it in the interests of the commerce of Northern Ireland that we lose the additional funding that would be available from Europe? Of course it is not. Is it in the interests of jobs? Everybody knows that the outcome of such privatisation processes is that jobs are lost, so there will be no advantage to Northern Ireland in the privatisation of its ports.
Only the Government's short-term interest is served by the order. It is a triumph of their ideology over the best interests of the community. The question must be asked, and answered: morally, if not legally, are the Government entitled to sell the Belfast port? I noticed that the explanatory document issued by the Department said:
Trust ports are independent statutory authorities established under local legislation. They are not owned by anyone.
They may not be owned by anyone, but the Government will sell them anyway. That puts them in the position of receivers of stolen goods. Anywhere else that would be seen as a criminal act. The ports in Northern Ireland, such as Belfast port, are the property of the people of Belfast and of the people of Northern Ireland. They are not the property of a Tory Government to sell so that they can make the public sector borrowing requirement look a little better at the end of the year.
As I have already said, I am concerned that there will be a reduction not only in the grant, and therefore the investment, that will go into the Belfast port, but that it will become less competitive. A significant investment has been made in the past, and a considerable amount of European grant has been received. Over the past five years the port of Belfast has invested about £100 million in a ports development programme. Of that, £40 million came from its own funds and the remaining money from EC grants. That has helped the port to modernise its facilities, and it has added new facilities such as a roll on/roll off terminal. There are also new cranes, and the port has a vastly improved infrastructure.
We wonder whether, in the present circumstances, the EC could claw back the funds that it has already given to what was a public company. The House deserves a response from the Minister on that issue. Could European funds already granted be clawed back if the port becomes a private concern? The Minister says that the present available grant for the port is up to 75 per cent., but many people in the House will doubt whether a privatised port would get anything like the maximum of 50 per cent. of an EC grant. Indeed, some will consider it questionable whether it would get anything at all.
We must deal with the issue of the assets of the port as they currently stand. The bill may be, say, £50 million a year. The Minister has not offered us any better guidance on what he expects to net for his 50 per cent. of the income from the sale of the port. If he wanted to give us further guidance, it might be useful to the House. Can he give us a figure that he feels might be achieved by the sale of Belfast port?
Anyone who examines the assets connected with the considerable land site can see immediately that there are


significant assets that could be sold off to pay for the purchase that the company will already have made. It seems a remarkable bargain. First, the purchasers have to pay only half the price; then they can probably sell about a quarter of the goods to pay for it, and end up with the rest for nothing. That is the bargain that the Minister is offering as an inducement to privatise the port.
As I understand it, the House should give considerable approval to the position of the harbour commissioners. They have effectively said that their interest is not personal, because commissioners might do very well out of a programme such as that offered under the order. But the commissioners recognise that the interests of the Northern Ireland economy as a whole would not be advantaged by the reduction of European funding.
The considerable land assets can be sold off, with a fairly meagre pay-back to the Government should that occur. So far as I can recall off the top of my head, about 25 per cent. is payable if pieces are sold within the first five years, stepping down to about 10 per cent. for years nine and 10. After 10 years the purchasers are on their own; they can sell anything, and do not have to pay back any of the money at all. That seems a remarkable sell-off of a public asset that should not be the private possession of any company.
A further issue is the virtual monopoly that will be created by such a sale. So far, at least, the Government have not publicly addressed that problem. At present, the harbour commissioners use a high degree of judgment to ensure equality of treatment and fair charging at the port. However, if the purchaser should happen to be someone with a private interest within the port, the charging might be varied to the advantage of that private interest. So fair charging and equality of treatment may be changed, depending on who the purchaser is.
Considerable concern has been expressed by the Belfast Shipping Agents Association, which is worried that privatisation would create a monopoly. The association says:
Our members are concerned, for themselves and for the other providers of services in the Port of Belfast, for importers and exporters of goods and for Northern Ireland consumers generally, that in this monopoly situation any excessive increase in port charges made by a Privatised Port Authority could have serious and detrimental effects on the Northern Ireland economy.
The association asks:
Will there be a safeguard, such as a Regulatory Authority, built in",
so that any new privatised port arrangement will be monitored? The Minister should answer that question.
There is another question concerning the assets to which I want the Minister to respond. The Minister seems to be shaking his head. Just because he made a two-minute speech, it does not mean that everyone else in the House has to do the same. I want to point the Minister in the direction of some important aspects of the possessions of the harbour commission.
I am thinking in particular of buildings with significant historical interest, and also paintings, sculptures and maritime artefacts which belong to the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister make provision to ensure that those will form part of a maritime museum, rather than becoming the possessions of a new privatised company? The port of Belfast trade union side has argued that point strongly and I think that it is a strong case.
In conclusion, it can be seen that Belfast port is substantially different from other ports in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the competition from ports in the Republic of Ireland. Privatisation would do considerable damage to the whole of the Northern Ireland economy. The Government should be repudiated for their attempt to benefit their own financial interests rather than the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to take the sale off the counter. Indeed, I argue that the port is not theirs to sell. We are told that the Government's policy is to attempt to get Northern Ireland parties to agree. Here the Northern Ireland parties are in agreement about what we want, so what do the Government do? They form the obstacle to having those wishes fulfilled.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The Government know that the overwhelming response from the general public, community organisations, the trade unions, Belfast city council and the political parties was direct opposition to the proposals. What confidence can we have that the interests of Northern Ireland will be taken into account during any future consultation process? That question is especially pertinent given that we have not yet had a response to the points raised in the submission.
The Government say that they have no economic or selfish interests in Northern Ireland. That statement rings hollow when we see the way in which they are systematically stripping Northern Ireland of its assets, leaving the Province weak, vulnerable and open to exploitation by monetary interests whose sole purpose is to prey on our people's work ethic and thereby amass vast personal wealth.
The port of Belfast, as our principal sea port, is the latest to suffer from this macabre and irresponsible attitude. Belfast is not in competition with any British port. Its main competition comes from the southern Irish ports and, at present, it compares very favourably with them. As a result of the order, that competitiveness will be lost.
As has already been said, the Dublin Government have already decided that their ports will remain in public hands, thereby maintaining their eligibility, as public concerns, for up to 85 per cent. European grant money, whereas private businesses are eligible for only 50 per cent. That is not a calm fishing reach and it tips the equation the wrong way, at our expense. I am also informed that the Dublin Government extend favourable tax treatment to their ports and that new harbour legislation is under way further to extend those advantages.
We all know that the port of Belfast has benefited substantially from the European regional development fund to help it restructure and modernise in a down-river relocation. I am, therefore, concerned about the precise changes in ERDF status that the privatisation process may bring about. It is conceivable that the European Community could, rightly, demand a return of a proportion of the grants if it believed that, under privatisation, the general public might not have the benefits and uses that they enjoy under the present status.
I am apprehensive about the effects that privatisation would have on the site of special scientific interest, which is essential to the welfare of many forms of wildlife that are


found in the location. It is widely recognised that the area is vital in the migratory pattern of water fowl. Although the private sector may not exploit an SSSI, it is most unlikely to invest in it and manage it to the same degree.
I am also concerned about safeguards against predatory ownership, especially by companies based in member states. Do the Government intend to follow the example of the sale of Belfast international airport and retain a golden share in the ports? Will there be a change of ownership structure? If there is, it will be essential that any purchaser can demonstrate a long-term commitment to the continuing success of the port so that customers and employees can be confident of a stable future under the new regime.

Mr. Michael Brown: I bring to this debate the experience of having represented, for the past 10 years, the port of Immingham. I recall that in my first Session of Parliament I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Transport Bill which brought into being Associated British Ports, the private company that runs many of the ports in the United Kingdom, including the port in Hull and the one in my constituency.
I reassure Ulster Members that my intervention in the debate will be brief. I intend to make two main points about the orders, which I very much welcome. If any Ulster Member has any concerns about the benefits that privatisation may or may not bring, I invite him to come to Immingham in my constituency.
Opposition Members who served on the Transport Bill Committee threatened that all the ports on the east coast of England would close. They said that Immingham and Grimsby would go into a decline and that Hull would go into even more of a decline. Now we have Associated British Ports, which is not answerable to the old British Transport Docks Board and the Treasury. There is competition not only among the ports within the group but with other ports.
Felixstowe used to be difficult to compete against. The arguments put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) today were put when Associated British Ports was set up. People said, "How will it be possible for the newly privatised ports of Immingham, Grimsby and Hull to compete against Rotterdam and Felixstowe?" Rotterdarn had European money pouring into the Europort. People asked how it would be possible for the little ports out in the cold in the private sector, which had no access to capital and no access to the Treasury, to compete. The truth is that they compete on their own terms with Rotterdam and Felixstowe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would testify to that. The blunt truth is that there is a renaissance in the docks industry on the east coast as a result of privatisation.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right about the renaissance of docks on the east coast of Britain. That may not be due solely to competition, although I concede that competition is important. What does he say to the point made by Unionist Members here this evening—that under the new arrangements, Belfast will be handicapped in competition with Dublin? That is the essential point. We are not opposed to competition. We appreciate that competition has been successful in other areas and we know that our ports can compete successfully. However,

the orders will handicap our ports in competition with their only and chief competitor. Will the hon. Gentleman address that issue?

Mr. Brown: I simply say that that is exactly the argument—I recall it well—used by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who also served on the Standing Committee in 1980–81. He made precisely that point about the relationship between Immingham, Grimsby, Hull and Rotterdam.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I have promised to be brief because I know that, as an intruder from England in a Northern Ireland debate, I must not take up too much time. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with that. The fact is that the Belfast port and the Dublin port are on the same island. Therefore, they are in competition with each other. Rotterdam is not on the mainland of the United Kingdom. It is not in competition. Those ports are in competition with each other, not with Rotterdam.

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that that is simply not true. It is the case that the success of Immingham docks in securing for itself trade that once upon a time used to come from all the world, including South Africa and South America, and go to Rotterdam, which served Europe, now comes to Immingham and to Hull. I have to tell the hon. Gentlemen that it is precisely because of privatisation in the early 1980s that we succeeded in bringing to the east coast of Britain, rather than to the mainland of Europe, much of the international docks traffic that is now available to the United Kingdom. I say to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that docks traffic is international. It does not know boundaries in the way that they have suggested.
I now want to get on to the main—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall not give way any more after this. I am anxious to press on to the main point of my speech.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I put to the hon. Gentleman the following case. Dublin is to receive money from the European Community. Remember, the south of Ireland is getting £6 million, when Northern Ireland has got nothing out of the European Community, and instead is paying up per head of its people—I have received those answers from the Treasury. If Dublin is to receive a £6 million kitty to build up the port and the new ports scheme, being a private scheme, is not to have the 85 per cent. grant—perhaps not even a 50 per cent. or a 30 per cent. grant—surely that would be unfair competition. The hon. Gentleman is talking about England in fair competition with others. I am talking of a situation that would be totally unfair.

Mr. Brown: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is rather like the unfairness which Immingham, Grimsby and Hull had to put up with after they were privatised, to the extent that they were also handicapped by a thing on the mainland of the United Kingdom called the dock labour scheme. We had unfair practices, we had handicaps, we had unfairness against Felixstowe. Indeed, it was not until 1989 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)


finally abolished the scheme, after much pressure and lobbying from my hon. Friends, and we were able to get rid of an unfair handicap. So I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He is talking of a relative unfairness on the island of Ireland. We also had a relative unfairness, yet never for one moment did I suggest that we should not go down the road of privatisation simply on the grounds of that unfair handicap.
Two years ago, the Government took a further step towards liberalising the ports industry by enabling trust ports to become privatised. To date, that process has proved a success and it is to be hoped that the remaining trust ports will follow the example of their colleagues. Of course, all of those ports have followed in the wake of the outstanding privatisation of ABP in 1983, which I have just described. I very much hope that the Belfast harbour commissioners and the trustees of other ports in Northern Ireland will give serious consideration to the advantages which privatisation may offer them.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will not give way. I have been generous in giving way and I am acutely aware that we have less than two hours left. I hope that the remarks which I am about to make may find favour with the hon. Member for Belfast, East and a number of his hon. Friends. On the following point, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to reconsider, but to listen carefully to the points on the constitutional aspects of the order.
I have had the privilege of serving as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for one year. I was secretary of the Conservative parliamentary Northern Ireland committee for over six years, vice-chairman of that committee for two years and for one year the Government Whip with responsibility for Northern Ireland. I have always been acutely conscious of the arguments consistently advanced by hon. Members from all political parties in Northern Ireland about the manner in which our debates are conducted. On that, I agree that there may well be some merit in what they have to say.
My second point concerns the constitutional position on Northern Ireland ports should the Government, at some stage, decide to exercise their compulsory powers. I have no argument at all against the Government using those powers if they decide to do so. While I am absolutely in favour of the concept of privatisation and, perhaps one day, compulsory privatisation, it is a fact that, that under the terms of the order, Northern Ireland ports are put at a constitutional disadvantage. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East has already said, the statutory instrument would pass through Parliament under the negative resolution procedure, with no opportunity for parliamentary debate, whereas, for mainland British ports that are compelled to privatise—Aberdeen, Ipswich and Poole may fall into that category—a debate on the Floor of the House is automatically guaranteed.
I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but it is only right and proper for Northern Ireland ports to be treated in exactly the same way as their mainland counterparts. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received a number of representations on that issue and has already

given some assurances about considering permitting a full debate. There is some merit in what hon. Members have said about getting the procedures for Northern Ireland on exactly the same basis as we have for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that if hon. Members from Northern Ireland are not able accept my views and arguments in favour of privatisation, they will at least understand that I accept the case that they have put on the constitutional manner in which this order and consequent orders should be put to the House.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for an opportunity to make a few brief remarks on the orders, which I want to oppose on the same grounds as those on which my party opposed the Ports Act 1991. We have heard from the Minister that the order is an enabling measure. Were that so, we would have no difficulty with it, because the enabling characteristics of it are not ones with which we would wish to take issue, but lurking behind the enabling characteristics is the threat of coercion. That is where we would part company with the Government.
There has been mention of the need for competition between ports and we very much support that. We recognise that, in the past, some trust ports may have viewed the private Bill procedure in the House as so complicated that they would get bogged down in it, so we have no problem with the principle of freeing up that procedure. However, if some port trustees—the Belfast harbour commissioners or whoever—see that process simplified and serve out the two-year time period, which is already contained in the mainland legislation and is envisaged in the orders, and then decide not to proceed voluntarily with privatisation, there seems little justification for the Government stepping in over their heads and trying to do it on a compulsory basis.
The Government do not seem to have listened to, or learnt from, their earlier legislation. Few, if any, of the candidates on the mainland involved in that earlier legislation who have failed to come up with proposals in the two-year period want, at this stage, to change their status. That is why we shall again oppose the Government over the orders. We believe now, as before, that the Government should not ride over the heads of the commissioners who deal on a day-to-day basis with those matters and who have arrived at a considered decision that takes into account local factors. Different ports have different characteristics. In the case of Northern Ireland—as hon. Members have already said, Belfast is the only port which is threatened because it is the only port which falls into the criteria—the economic difficulties that it faces simply cannot be overlooked. One must ask whether the area would be better off as a result of compulsory privatisation of the Belfast port. Many hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate have persuasively put forward the argument that it would not.
The Government believe that privatisation is an attractive option because it will give access to capital for development, it will in some way make it easier to develop surplus land and there will be more diversification of development. They have even suggested that it will become more profitable. Some of those arguments may be true, but will they all be true?
The record of Belfast port shows that it has already enjoyed success by reinvesting the surpluses that it has made by raising money on its own account. It has shown resourcefulness and imagination. It has an impressive growth rate—an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the past five years. There has been modernisation, and much land has already been leased to relevant commercial interests. Belfast port is a vital and integral part of the Northern Ireland economy.
Reference has been made to the disadvantage in the European grant regime that would follow any privatisation. What the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said earlier about competitiveness is right. The argument that Belfast would be at a sharp disadvantage, especially in terms of competing with Dublin, if it were on a completely different grant regime has not been satisfactorily answered by the Government.
Another point is accountability. The Belfast harbour commissioners draw on representation from various elements of the community in Northern Ireland. In the event of a compulsory sell-off, they would be replaced by an unaccountable—in any public sense—private body. That body could conceivably have directors who know little of the interests of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the port itself. Many of them may be anonymous and have little interest in it.
I hope that the Minister will give an unambiguous answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Would the Government use any golden share that they might retain to block a foreign interest coming in and taking over? Would the community be better off as a result of a private sale? Would a company whose sole motive was to make a profit serve the community better than the current Belfast harbour commissioners? Surely, employment is the most important thing to the community at large. The Minister has suggested that the economic opportunities arising from privatisation will assist in that regard, but I believe that we should be concerned about the threats that have been identified by hon. Members in this debate.
Finally, on the constitutional point, it seems wrong that the procedures for Northern Ireland should be different from those for the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the Minister referred to "considering" any request to have the matter debated on the Floor of the House. In a letter to Lord Holme, who speaks for us on these matters in another place, he went one step further and said that the Government would give "careful consideration" to any such request. That is not good enough. We must have an unequivocal commitment from the Government that any such move will be debated on the Floor of the House as a matter of course.
The bulk of the United Kingdom's trade still uses ports. The role of the ports in our economy is crucial. It is okay to set up enabling measures so that those who wish to privatise can take advantage of that. However, there can be no excuse whatever for forcing, over the heads of the commissioners, ports to privatise when they do not wish to do so, especially in the light of the unfair competition, in terms of European grant, that would result from privatisation.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: While I, as the spokesman for my party on this subject, will be raising a number of concerns relating to these orders, it would be useful for me to give the House a little history lesson to highlight the changes that have taken place in electing or appointing harbour commissioners since the Origins of Port 1613.
In 1785, the corporation for preserving and improving the port and harbour of Belfast was set up by an Act of Parliament. That body was later to become known as the ballast board. The success of that board in expanding the ports operations led, in 1847, to a successor board—the Belfast harbour commissioners—being given authority and trust status further to develop the harbour under the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. The new board set about creating three main channels for ships and earned Belfast the name of the trident port.
The Belfast Harbour Commissioners Board still runs the port and its nine members are appointed by the Minister. That came about because the Belfast Harbour Acts Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 was passed by the House, giving the power of appointment to the Department of Commerce—a power which subsequently passed to the Department of Environment and the Minister.
Under the 1847 Act, one third of the commissioners stood down every year and an election was held to replace or re-elect them. That election was held on the first Thursday in February under the control of the secretary of the Belfast harbour commissioners. It is interesting to know that the candidates and electors had to reside in Belfast or within seven miles of it. That was measured from the town's commercial buildings. For at least six months prior to the election, they had to own a vessel of more than 100 tonnes registered in the port of Belfast, and they had to own property with an annual value of £500, or £300 if it was a holding or a freehold estate. They were also required to pay a police tax of £6 to Belfast town council.
Basically, we can assume that the commercial interests associated with the harbour elected those running the harbour—the Belfast harbour commissioners. Perhaps, these days, the narrowness of that electorate could be criticised but it was wider than the appointments made and the orders raised by one person—the Minister—who is unelected by anyone in Belfast harbour, Belfast city or even Northern Ireland. If we place on top of that the proposal under article 12 to introduce privatisation by negative resolution, we can truly say that democracy in Northern Ireland does not exist.
My views on quangos are well known. As it is presently appointed, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners Board is a quango.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is referring to quangos and how they are appointed. Is he prepared to acknowledge that, according to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there must be consultation with the Maryfield secretariat?

Mr. Forsythe: I understand that that is the case. Consultations can take place between the two Governments on the matter. The quango is similar to 150 other bodies in Northern Ireland. My friends among the


Belfast harbour commissioners will not like me saying that. I object to the creation of that quango and will continue to object to it until we achieve some change.
I am fully aware of the excellent work carried out by the present board and other boards through the years. Their work has been on a par with that of commissioners in the past, who were elected under a different system. I am also aware of what the port means and of the high regard in which the commissioners are held by the citizens of Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland.
Leaving aside my views about the intentions of the order, I must put on record clearly, as other hon. Members have done, my strong objections to the method that is being used to pave the way to the removal of the port of Belfast from local control. It completely ignores the original intention of the Acts of Parliament, which were properly debated and amended or accepted by this mother of Parliaments. It represents a tremendous change for Belfast harbour in terms of democracy and so on.
Perhaps we should consider, for the benefit of those who do not have a Belfast background, what will be lost to local people if the control of the port is taken outside Northern Ireland under article 12 of the order. There is a 3,000 acre estate with 8,000 m of quayage. There are 70 berths, which include four roll on/roll off docks, six container docks, four dry docks and one shipbuilding dock. There are 58,000 sq m of transit storage sheds, and four grain silos which hold about 150,000 tonnes of grain.
As has already been mentioned, within that estate we have Shorts Bombardier, Harland and Wolff, the city airport and many other smaller firms, including Belfast West power station. I shall ask the Minister some questions at a later stage. Perhaps he will explain about the cross-harbour road and railway line which is being constructed. What will be the position of the road and rail network under the new arrangements for privatisation, if, indeed, privatisation takes place? I understand what the Minister said earlier about the order being a paving operation, but let us be honest: a paving operation is there to be used.
As others have said, the port accounts for 55 per cent. of all Northern Ireland's imports and exports. It has public user facilities for fuel oil, petroleum products, petroleum gas and aviation fuel. It has heavy lifting and general cranage. It has deep berths. All of those facilities are unavailable, at least to the same extent, in the rest of Northern Ireland.
As other hon. Members have said, the harbour commissioners' building contains many items of historical significance, many of which were gifts. The building is part of the history and culture of Northern Ireland. It is used for receptions. It plays a civic role. It hosts concerts and tours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, many experts regard the estate as an area of scientific interest and are greatly worried about how they would deal with a commercial firm which had a profit motive.
Why is the successful port of Belfast being upset by a plan for privatisation? Belfast city council opposes it. The trade unions oppose it. Politicians have spoken against it. The people of Northern Ireland do not wish privatisation to happen. They would like the port to remain under local control. Perhaps the Minister will say that the port could

remain under local control if a proposal were made. But that cannot be guaranteed if the port is privatised. Unfortunately, I have to consider what the Minister seems to have ignored—the views of most of those who responded to the consultation process. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the port is being privatised for ideological reasons and because it is the policy of the Conservative party.
I shall now ask the Minister some questions, having given a history lesson. The Minister may already have been aware of the history, but I thought that it was worth putting it on the record. What precisely will be the position of the Belfast harbour police? I know that one of my Labour colleagues will probably raise a similar point if he manages to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. No mention has been made of that force. The same applied to the airport privatisation order.
We all have great admiration for the fine Belfast harbour police force. It has given stalwart service to the harbour over many years. It has done so in Northern Ireland and Belfast terms in the most difficult circumstances. It is important that the Minister should put on record the exact position on future policing of this substantial area within the city of Belfast.
There are several questions which the Minister was probably aware that I might ask. I do not wish to take up a lot of time. If the port is privatised, will he produce ideas and proposals for the Belfast harbour police before the privatisation plan is fully implemented?
It has been said by others, and is worth repeating, that the privatisation of the port would lose Belfast its trust status. Under the present status, the harbour commissioners enjoy a healthy level of profitability and they pay full corporation tax, which is very useful to the Exchequer. They receive no assistance from the Government for port development expenditure, and their ability to keep profits has allowed port development to be carried out with the assistance only of grants from the European regional development fund. That has resulted in the harbour benefiting substantially from those funds.
Will the Minister put on record what changes he sees taking place in the European grant regime? Could he share with us the impact of such changes? For instance, when Belfast port is privatised, would there be any requirement—as others have asked—for the Government to reimburse the grants received in the past by the Belfast harbour commissioners?
In that context, does not the Minister think that it is ironic—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is no longer here, as I would have liked him to have heard this—that the Government are laying an order to pave the way for the privatisation of Belfast harbour at a time when the cohesion fund status and aid through Intereg 2 is being applied to ports in the Republic of Ireland? Those ports are being offered grants of up to 85 per cent. because the Government of the Republic are reinforcing the trust status of the ports.
I need not repeat, but I reinforce, what been said about Belfast being treated differently under the order from ports in the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to article 10 of the Ports Act 1991. Will the Minister put on record how he intends to protect the port users, because a monopoly would be created if it were privatised? The port has public user facilities which other ports in Northern Ireland do not have. The only facilities for such products as aviation fuel, petroleum and low-pressure gas are in Belfast port and are


not available anywhere else. A monopoly in Belfast port could be crucial to the charges of those products and to Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister consider setting up a regulatory authority to monitor port changes and to prevent excessive profits? I agree with what has been said about the risk to firms of long standing which have given great service to the port—such as stevedores and ship's agents—and they in no circumstances should be squeezed out by a monopoly. That would be very unfortunate.
Will the Minister tell the House, if we get to the stage where the port is privatised, what will be the position of the port's pension fund? Perhaps he could tell us the position of the pension fund now, but he cannot tell us what it will be like in two years' time, because he is not a prophet. I am interested in this matter, because there will be a lot to think about if the fund is either in surplus or in deficit. In the past we have had to ask the Minister to put on record his views on the pensions position of the workers and the staff of the port.
If the port is privatised, will the Minister give me a proper undertaking—not a superficial undertaking—about the position of the members employed in the port, the pensioners who are already receiving their pensions and deferred pensioners who no longer work in the port, or are working there but are deferred pensioners? Will a condition of sale for any new owner be to continue the fund in its present form to ensure that all members, pensioners and deferred pensioners do not lose out in the future?
The Minister will be aware that a new company could take over a facility such as the port of Belfast and close the pension fund. Will he assure me that, if the port is privatised, the position for members of the pension scheme would not change because they would receive any amount due to them up to a given time? Would that pension fund be allowed to continue under the same conditions and providing the same benefits, and would that be written into any contract or arrangement between the Government and a new company, if the port is privatised? In that context, will the Minister assure us that all the recommendations contained in the document on the future of pensions presented to the House last week will be closely followed in any negotiations concerning the pension fund?
The democracy that now exists in the election of Belfast harbour commissioners will disappear and a Minister will appoint the commissioners. Instead of being allowed to debate future privatisation matters in the House, the matter will be introduced by negative resolution. For those reasons and because the port is so important to Belfast, we are not happy with the prospect of it being privatised. My hon. Friends and I have no ideological views one way or the other on privatisation except on the merits of the case. The merits of this case do not take us into the same Lobby as Her Majesty's Government and we shall vote against the order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am here tonight and have an interest in opposing the order not merely because I am a Labour Member of Parliament—although that is a good enough reason for being here—but because my constituents are angry about how badly my community in Tilbury was treated over the sale of its port and are concerned that similar circumstances should not befall the people of Belfast, who are also proud of their port.
It is worth trying to remind Tory Members that they are hearing me in the Chamber tonight partly because my predecessor, who lost the election, was a passionate advocate of the privatision of the port of Tilbury.

Mr. Tim Smith: A great man.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister says that my predecessor is a great man, but the good people of Thurrock did not think so. While I hope that I brought other qualities to the campaign, the fact remains that I am here partly because the people of Thurrock deeply resented the sale of their port, of which they were proud, and the fact that their Member of Parliament advocated that sale. Arguably, that is what cost Mr. Tim Janman the election and provided an extra seat for the Labour party.
Those facts give me a mandate not only to raise that matter but to say that I am proud to associate myself with the views expressed by Northern Ireland Members who on their constituents' behalf, strongly oppose Belfast's privatisation. The Government should reflect on this before making any attempt to trigger the sale of the port of Belfast: they have no mandate whatever for such a sale. The political parties in Northern Ireland demonstrably oppose such privatisation. The trade unions definitely oppose it, not only for employment reasons—although they are rightly worried about employment—but because the people of Belfast are proud of their history and of the harbour, which, to them, is a symbol of that history. That should not be minimised or dismissed: it is an important factor that the Government should take into account in considering the matter further.
I share the view of other hon. Members that this is a crazy and unacceptable way in which to treat Northern Ireland legislation. I do not care what happens or what is said elsewhere: as a Member of the House of Commons, I want the capacity and opportunity to scrutinise and probe the intentions of the Government and to examine all legislation in detail.
This order is equivalent to a major Act of Parliament, and in any normal and sensible circumstances would justify the full scrutiny of a parliamentary Committee. Why? Because we should be able to examine the Government's intentions. In the course of that legislative process, the Government would, almost as surely as night turns into day, discover that their measure was in some respects flawed. Even if they could not be persuaded by hon. Members that the provisions should be tempered, they would find that the draftsmen and their offices had overlooked some important factors. This legislative process and this order in particular are therefore bad from the point of view of scrutiny of our law-making process.
If we had had the opportunity to consider the legislation in Committee, many of the questions that have been posed by hon. Members tonight would have been answered. I suspect that many of those questions will not be answered when the Minister replies, but we shall see. Perhaps he will be understanding when some of us ask him to give way later: it would be reprehensible if he tried to plead shortage of time or to claim that he had not fully taken note of the point. He has a moral obligation to answer our questions tonight because the matter may well not come before the House of Commons again, in which case there will be no further scrutiny.
As the Minister would expect, and as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) rightly said, let us use the


future of the police at Belfast harbour as an example of a matter that we wish to probe. This important point would not only have a debate to itself: if we considered the legislation in Committee, it would probably be the subject of new clauses and amendments.
It is important that people who hold the office of constable should be protected from commercial considerations, which might well trespass on their work if the port were privatised. We do not know who the prospective purchasers might be. Some very undesirable outfits might purchase the port. For those purchasers to have access to and stewardship and ownership of a police force seems to me to be unacceptable.
In any event, I must declare that it is repugnant to me, as a matter of policy, that any police force should be in private ownership and control. I have said that many times. I may sound like a long-playing gramophone record but I say it once more. The Government are privatising police forces in Northern Ireland and in the port of Tilbury in my constituency. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is unacceptable. It is unfair to police officers, who are proud of their office, and it is unacceptable to other police forces that remain in the public sector.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister owes not only him but the people of Northern Ireland an explanation as to why he intends to proceed by means of an Order in Council rather than by means of a Bill, which would allow the hon. Gentleman and right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies the right to speak on the subject and amend the proposed legislation? The Minister owes the House an explanation as to why he has selected a procedure that gives the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected Members of Parliament and through friends such as the hon. Gentleman, no opportunity to amend the legislation.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We shall see whether the Minister takes up that point when he replies.
I share a common interest with those who are protecting and promoting the interests of Belfast harbour and its people tonight. Unlike the rest of the trust ports that were subject to the Ports Act 1991, my port of Tilbury was privatised without further scrutiny being given to the proposals in the House. The matter was subject to examination during the Committee stage of the Ports Bill, so it received more scrutiny than-the possible privatisation of Belfast port. Once the Ports Bill was enacted, the port of Tilbury was treated extraordinarily and as distinct from the other trust ports. It was sold without any further reference, order or debate in this place. That is what will happen to the port of Belfast unless the Government can be persuaded to turn from their present course; there will be no further discussions in this place. We shall read in the financial pages one day that the port of Belfast has been disposed of. That is unacceptable and discriminates against Northern Ireland.
While provision exists for the compulsory sale of Aberdeen, Poole or Ipswich to be examined and voted on in the House, Belfast will not have that privilege. That is unacceptable. Let us ask the Minister for the true reason behind it. Is it not a fact that the Government know that

there will be considerable resistance if they try to push through an order relating to Aberdeen, Poole or Ipswich because they will have to allow the order to be scrutinised? By a quirk, they can push through the order relating to Belfast without further scrutiny, which suits their purposes because they need to try to start promoting legislation and getting greenbacks for the Treasury—the order is, to a large extent, Treasury driven.
If we had a proper legislative process, we could pursue the reasonable point made by many hon. Members about the buildings and artefacts of the harbour commissioners. When we were debating the Railways Bill, we had discussions about the artefacts of the railways, and how they would be preserved, kept in public ownership and made available to the public. I attended the sittings of the Committee that considered the Ports Bill, although unfortunately I was not then a Member of the House, and there was then a general debate about the artefacts of the railways after privatisation.
The harbour commissioners at Belfast have great artefacts and antiquities of which they are proud and which, it is felt, belong to the people of Belfast. I recall an enjoyable and interesting day when the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) took me to visit the harbour commissioners. I saw their buildings and learnt about the history mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). I am grateful that he related that history to the House as it should be placed on record. That history is inextricably bound up with the pride that the people of Belfast have in their harbour and the historic nature of the commissioners' office.
At some stage during our deliberations, the Minister tried to taunt the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) by implying that, unless the order was passed, the port of Larne would be disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Antrim, East, whose constituency includes the port of Lame, will no doubt speak on his own behalf. However, let me say that, while there is competition between Larne and Belfast, they also complement one another. There is a balance—one is in public ownership and one is in private ownership, and long may that situation flourish. But if the port of Belfast is disposed of, it will raise the question of whether there will still be two ports. The future would then be uncertain, which would obviously be damaging to employment and the communities that are largely served by the two ports. Far from these orders being an attractive proposition for Lane, their prospect raises great dangers. I look forward with interest to what the hon. Member for Antrim, East has to say.

Mr. John D. Taylor: There are more than two ports in Northern Ireland; we also have Londonderry and Warren Point. The Government are giving their full support and enthusiasm to expenditure, through the cohesion fund of the European Community, to advance the ports in the Republic of Ireland, and that will eventually lead to the closure of Warren Point harbour.

Mr. Mackinlay: The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is manifestly an important one. When I visited Warren Point, I saw for myself that the Republic opposite would benefit from the cohesion fund—and that is its entitlement—whereas Warren Point would not.
After all the bravado and macho politics displayed by the Prime Minister in his approach to Europe—and I shall not trespass too far down that road this evening—it


occurred to me to ask why, some months ago, the Government did not argue that the cohesion fund should extend to the whole of the island of Ireland. That would have been logical and would not have trespassed on other sensitive issues involving Northern Ireland and the Republic, but—so far as I am aware—it never crossed their mind.
The matter arose in European Standing Committee B and I tried to probe the Minister about it. Clearly, it had never occurred to him to go to Brussels and bang on the table and explain the extraordinary circumstances involving the interface between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that there is a strong case for the cohesion fund to extend to the island of Ireland. All the parties concerned would have understood that, but the Government did not even contemplate exploring the issue. That is absolutely wretched and jeopardises the port and interests at Warren Point and probably elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) gave us the benefit of his attention earlier. I regret that he is not here now as I thought he was talking through a hole in his hat when he suggested that there was a comparable situation as between Rotterdam and Cleethorpes. Has anyone heard anything so absurd? Certainly not today. If the port of Belfast loses grant from the European Community because it is sold off and if the port of Dublin and the Irish Government legitimately seek to exploit the cohesion fund there will demonstrably be disadvantages to the port of Belfast; for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes told us what a great advantage privatisation was and how the Ports Act 1991 was so attractive. It is significant that, so far as I am aware, none of the trust ports that were subject to the 1991 Act have voluntary put up their hands and asked to be privatised. We are still waiting with bated breath to find out whether the Government will move in relation to Ipswich, Aberdeen or Poole. I hope that they will not. It is interesting to note that the equivalent of the harbour commissioners there have not volunteered their ports for privatisation, despite the attraction that we are told exists.
The Government cannot get their way there, so they decide to pick on a part of the country, a particular port, where there is not so much political clout or opposition as would occur were they to tackle Aberdeen with the political considerations there, Poole, which is a Tory area, or Ipswich, which is a marginal parliamentary seat.
I am also concerned about the implications for the dock workers. One of the experiences in the port of Tilbury is that people who were proud to be employed in the docks industry are now facing casualisation. There have been major redundancies and people are not employed on a full-time basis with the pay and conditions of service to which they are entitled.
On the other side of the Thames, it is important that people in Belfast are aware of what has happened to the port of Medway, where a tantalising carrot was put before the dock workers in the form of an invitation to join what I believe to be a wholly bogus and cosmetic management-employee buy-out. It was suggested that they could have a share in their enterprises. We have heard that commercial before—how it was all part of the Thatcher revolution; people could have a stake in their firms.
The good dock workers of Medway were invited to take shares in their port. Many did so. Not long after that port was sold to a so-called management-employee buy-out,

dock worker after dock worker was sacked. They then found that, under the small print, they were obligated to sell back their shares at £2.50 per share. Some of the purchasers of their shares were the port owners/managers. They got hold of those cheap shares and after a few months sold them again at a price of £37.50 per share. That was a rip-off. In my view, it was a form of stealing. It was a gross deceit perpetrated upon the workers.
Suppose that this measure had a Committee stage. If, on reflection, the Government felt that what happened at Medway was unfair, they could amend the order to ensure that even if someone lost his job he could hold on to his shares. [Interruption.] If I could just attract the Minister's attention for a moment, I should like to ask him a specific question. Will he ensure that if there is a management-employee buy-out, the shares purchased and owned by the dock workers will be sacrosanct? If dock workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own, will they be able to retain their shares? That is an important point that needs to be clarified this evening because that was not the experience at Medway and elsewhere.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned about the security of share ownership. Does he agree that it is important that the shares in the privatised company should not be owned by foreign interests?

Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely; it is something that exercised us at the time of the sale of Tilbury. Indeed, it still does. Even if a port is sold initially to a management-employee buy-out—with a considerable amount of involvement from banks and other financial institutions—we do not know what will happen in the future. There will be compelling commercial considerations. Ownership and control could pass to the stewardship of people who do not have any loyalty to the locality, to the country or even to the ports industry. There is a great danger of asset stripping.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I was with the hon. Gentleman until his last few remarks. A new owner could have an interest in the ports industry, but in a port that was in competition with Belfast.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is absolutely correct. I am with the right hon. Gentleman all the way. The experience in England is that people will purchase ports with a view to running them down so that they can promote the other port or ports in their ownership.
Quite apart from the selfish interest that could emerge, it is a crazy way to run a ports industry. We are talking about strategic ports, vital to the economy of England in my case, and of Northern Ireland in the case of Belfast—and, indeed, of a large part of the northern part of the Republic of Ireland. The ports' development needs to be planned. Currently there is a delicate, complementary role between Belfast, Larne, Warren Point and the ports on the Foyle. With the absence of planning, England has too many ports, and at some stage some of them will lose out.
I have referred to the port of Dublin, but there are other ports in Ireland. The port of Cork is rightly exploiting the opportunities provided by European grants, to its legitimate advantage. I do not complain about that, but I think it is wrong for us to refer only to Dublin. The fact is that, given the major ports around the island of Ireland, Belfast will be the odd one out.
The port is strongly identified with Northern Ireland. It is an historic port—one of the great ports of the old empire. The Government should not dismiss its deep association with the city. Clearly they will not reverse their current course tonight, but I hope that in the not too distant future the Minister will state from the Dispatch Box that the Government, on reflection, have decided not to privatise the port but to leave it to the sensible stewardship of the harbour commissioners, with whose membership they will not tamper.
Opposition Members fear that, after the order is passed, there will be a period of uncertainty and disquiet. The harbour commissioners will be in limbo, and there will be anxiety among the work force and the trade unions. The Government should heed the popular view expressed by all Northern Ireland politicians, and the fact that a number of us have experienced the problems associated with port privatisation in other parts of the United Kingdom. A Minister should state from the Dispatch Box, in a matter of weeks, that after due reflection the Government have decided to leave the Belfast port and harbour commissioners to flourish in their enterprise, as they are currently trying to do.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has taken an informed interest in Northern Ireland and shared the concerns of its people.
Last night, winding up the debate, the Minister of State chided Northern Ireland Members for not talking the Province up. We are here tonight to talk the port of Belfast up, because we fear that a port with a proud history may be shunted down a siding—as it were—that would not benefit either the port or the citizens of Belfast.
I should declare an interest, for several reasons. My son-in-law works in the harbour; my great-uncle was first secretary of the Belfast dockers union; I was a minister for 19 years, and part of my parish was the harbour estate; I represent Belfast, South, members of whose city council and corporation—previously—have been commissioners. For all those reasons, I feel that I have a right to speak tonight and to challenge some of the assertions that have been made.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was trying to make, but, knowing the kipper trade and the herrings to be found along that coast, I thought that he was bringing a red herring into the debate when he spoke of the wonderful developments on the east coast. In fact, there has been a lamentable decline in Britain's west coast ports. The thrust of the European transport system relates to Dublin, Holyhead and further down—and, on the other side, the main link that will cause congestion around the channel tunnel. Some of us have been arguing for the build-up of the west coast ports, including the ports of Larne and Belfast. In case anyone thinks that there is a problem between Larne and Belfast, I can tell hon. Members that my paternal ancestors came from east Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will realise that I am not trying to encroach on his domain.
Belfast has a proud tradition, but we are now in a period of uncertainty. In a sense we have an elected dictatorship.

For years we have been lectured in the House about looking after minority rights. When the minority of the nation represented by its Members in this House combines with trade union officials and business interests to tell the House that this is not the right way to go, we would like to think that there might be second thoughts.
Emphasis has already been placed on the concept of consultation. I have had to challenge the use of English in this place on more than one occasion when we have been told that co-operation was excellent. I always thought that when I received an excellent report, which was very rarely, it could not be much better. Tonight there has been another wonderful use of English. We have been told that two fundamental points came from the discussion period. Those points have not been addressed and the draft order is unamended. If they were fundamental points, surely the Government should have addressed them. I am delighted that on both sides of the House voices have been raised arguing for a proper form of democracy and for proper scrutiny of measures in this place. Some 22 years after the abolition of Stormont, there is no excuse for making a mess of Northern Ireland legislation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member speaks for almost everyone in Northern Ireland when he talks about consultation. Just this weekend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said and wrote that nothing would happen without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. We are talking not just about consultation but about consent. Yet here we have an Order in Council for which consent is not forthcoming from the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman not find that the procedure that the Minister is pushing through the House is in total contradiction and rejection of the philosophy expounded by the Secretary of State when he said that consent should be applied?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the use of English. Yesterday we talked about the concept of consultation and we discovered that consultation meant very little. It is obvious that consent has the same import in certain branches of English scholarship. I do not know whether it is something to do with American English, but it is not Ulster English or Scots English, where we like to call a spade a spade. We would like to think that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland was being looked for rather than something being imposed on us.
We have praised the development of the harbour estate and the landfill site and reclamation work, but now it is possible that, even allowing for clawbacks, some persons could come in later and profit off the backs of the forebears of the harbour commissioners who over the years have been expanding and developing the port. We believe that that is wrong.
Our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland have done marvellously well in pushing their cause within Europe. That is their responsibility and I do not criticise them, but I indict Her Majesty's Government for not pushing the case of Northern Ireland and its ports.
I asked the Minister a question at the beginning of his speech and I was amazed that he did not have the answer on the tip of his tongue. We have heard that Aberdeen, Ipswich and Poole ports have trust status but have not asked to be privatised. As far as we know, the Government have not pushed for them to be privatised. Why has the order been introduced when other legislation that is more


important to Northern Ireland and affects the everyday life of its citizens is waiting to be considered? The Minister knows that I have been waiting for legislation to deal with road traffic problems in Belfast, but I have been told that there is insufficient time in the legislative programme. We are not getting our priorities right.
I do not want tediously to repeat the points that have been made, but I endorse my colleagues' arguments and I am delighted that they have been reflected on the Government Benches.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Article 12 refers to schemes initiated by the Department. In Northern Ireland we believe strongly that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That should be adhered to and borne in mind at all times.
Regrettably, recent bureaucratic meddling in port affairs in my constituency has been perceived as damaging in the borough of Carrickfergus. A decision has been made to cease commercial operations at the port of Carrickfergus. Was there collusion in Northern Ireland Departments to bring about the decline of Carrickfergus harbour, perhaps to make Belfast harbour even more attractive in the Government's privatisation programme?
The Minister should be aware of the decision taken some time ago in respect of commercial operations at Carrickfergus harbour, which is only 10 miles from Larne. At two public inquiries, it has been suggested that Departments and the council may have misled the commissioners into believing that an alternative port would be developed at Kilroot, but that has not happened. Will finance be made available to Carrickfergus borough council in the event of a decision to rescind the earlier decision to cease commercial operations so that Carrickfergus harbour can be regenerated and redeveloped as a commercial harbour and regain its former principal port status, which it achieved when record tonnages were recorded through the port? Did Northern Ireland Departments promote the scheme to cease commercial activities, and did they encourage the council to believe that it would get a replacement port at Kilroot, for which it would receive private and public funding?
Belfast port has become the principal sea port on the island of Ireland, handling more than 11 million tonnes of trade per annum. The private port of Larne in my constituency has the distinction of being the second busiest ferry port. I have no axe to grind today. I support the retention of the present status of Belfast harbour. Its success was largely attributable to the successful management of the harbour commissioners, who include representatives of the city council and the trade union movement, all motivated by a desire to improve the Northern Ireland economy.
There has been major modernisation and port development. I accept the right of the Government compulsorily to privatise Belfast port, but do they not recognise the potential of that successful port and the disadvantages that would result from a change in its status? Because of the advantages that are about to flow, the ports in the Irish Republic, such as Dublin, will have available grants of up to 85 per cent. for port development. As Belfast is a trust port, its harbour commissioners receive no grants or subsidies from Her Majesty's Government.

Retained profits, with assistance from European regional development funds, have financed port redevelopment and modernisation.
The economy of Northern Ireland as a whole benefits from the competitive pricing made possible by good management of all the facilities and assets managed by the Belfast harbour commissioners. Common sense dictates that when all is well there should be no interference. If the Government are determined to interfere, however, the bottom line is that the asset should be secured within the control of the people of Northern Ireland. Is the Treasury so hard up for cash that it has to recoup funds now rather than accept the ongoing annual benefits? I understand that £1 million was paid this year in corporation tax.
All Northern Ireland ports provide competition within Northern Ireland, which has made them attractive to Northern Ireland industry and, indeed, to industry in the Irish Republic, which makes use of our facilities. Millions of pounds every year are being relocated from the profitable private port of Larne and transferred out of the Province. If under privatisation Belfast harbour is lost to Northern Ireland control, its profits, too, will be lost for reinvestment in Northern Ireland. Surely the Minister can accept that the reinvestment of profits generated in Belfast harbour and the ongoing payment of corporation tax make a valuable contribution to the Northern Ireland economy and provide a worthwhile return to the Exchequer for its past investment. I therefore hope that he will accept that variety of management in harbour control has been beneficial and an asset to Northern Ireland, and that he will not proceed with a compulsory privatisation of Belfast harbour.
As I have said, I am conscious of the past advantages of private ownership, which helped to bring about the success and the development of Larne harbour, but I regret that in the present climate, with the greater advantage of EC funding going to the ports of the Irish Republic, the privatisation of Belfast harbour would bring with it serious disadvantages to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole. That would result in higher costs to importers and exporters alike, which could ultimately threaten jobs and employment opportunities beyond Belfast harbour.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I confess to a little puzzlement. Why, in theory or in practice, should one get less money from the EC for the ports in Northern Ireland if they are privatised than if they were in public ownership?

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Lady for that specific question. What she describes is one of the anomalies of European regional development funding; regrettably, therefore, successive Northern Ireland Ministers have not managed to secure equal benefits for private and public ports in the Province. I hope that the Minister will specifically address that question further in his response.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that as a party we judge each case on its merits. We see no merit in the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour through this enabling legislation and we trust that there will be no future decision compulsorily to require the Belfast harbour commissioners to privatise that harbour.

Mr. William O'Brien: We have had an interesting debate tonight. It is significant that the only support that the Minister has obtained in this debate has been from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who represents a constituency on the east coast of England, which does not even face Belfast.
No Northern Ireland Member supports the order and no Labour Member supports the order. I doubt whether, if the Minister or any other Tory went to Belfast, they would find one person who supported the order. That is the extent of the issue. There is no support in the House from Northern Ireland representatives or from the Labour party, and there is no support among the people of Belfast. The Minister should take note of that.

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the absence of support for the policy among the Northern Ireland parties. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only about 5,000 people out of the whole voting population of Northern Ireland supported the Conservative party in the recent elections.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman explains the depth of feeling. I bet that, if we approached Tories in Northern Ireland, they would not support the order, because the port of Belfast is key to the economy of greater Belfast and to the Northern Ireland economy in total. The port accounts for 55 per cent. of all imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland. The order can only mean poorer services and increased port charges, which will have a greater effect on the region than on Great Britain, because Northern Ireland relies on ports for trade and tourism links with the rest of the United Kingdom and the European Community.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) why a privatised port should receive less grant than a port in public ownership. The Minister explained why in his opening remarks. Here we have a person who will go through the Lobby tonight to condemn the port of Belfast, yet who does not know what the consequences will be. The people of Belfast will suffer because of this legislation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: From what I know of the European regional fund regulations, I do not believe that what Opposition Members describe will occur. I see no technical reason why the port should not get just as much, one way or another.

Mr. O'Brien: That shows once again that the hon. Lady is not aware of the circumstances or of the problems that she will create for the people of Northern Ireland in general, but in Belfast especially, by the way in which she votes tonight in favour of the order. Therefore, if the hon. Lady has any merit, the least that she could do would be to abstain or to vote against the order, because she is totally confused over the way in which the European Community grants will apply.
When the Minister was questioned, he explained in his opening remarks that the amount of grant received now, while the harbour is in public ownership, is 75 per cent., yet, under privatisation, it drops to 50 per cent.. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East and other hon. Members. It will have an effect on the economy of the harbour and the economy of Belfast.
The Government have wanted to claim that the order

will improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the port. Obviously, they are saying that privatisation will be a lesser burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is within a hair's breadth of convincing the hon. Lady that it would be wiser to abstain or to vote against the order. It should be pointed out that the Minister made it clear to the House in his opening remarks that, while a grant of up to 75 per cent. would be available if the port was in public ownership, a maximum grant of 50 per cent. would be available if it was a private company, and some of us doubt that it would even get that.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's point is significant and relevant. However, may I also tell the hon. Member for Lancaster that we were told tonight that, if the port realises £50 million in capital for its sale, 50 per cent. of that capital will go back to the company? In other words, only 50 per cent. of the value of the port and the real estate which goes with it will go to the Exchequer. Therefore, one has to ask why Conservative Members want to privatise a port which is highly efficient and highly profitable, and which helps the people of Belfast and the Province of Northern Ireland. One has to ask why we are in such a position tonight.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If we take an analogy from Great Britain, from the hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say whether a private port such as Felixstowe had more or less capital investment than some of the publicly owned ports? If he cannot acknowledge that Felixstowe did rather better than most of the publicly owned ports, should he not draw this part of his speech to a speedy conclusion?

Mr. O'Brien: That is another example of a Conservative Member trying to find some solution to justify going through the Lobby to support the order, because, again, the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Belfast is a trust port. All the resources which are generated from that port go back into the business, or it reduces the charges. It is a trust port; it is not a port where there will be—or where there are at present—any benefits to individuals or to companies.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Opposition parties have acquiesced in the disgraceful procedure of putting the matter through by Order in Council, to which he has important, specific detailed objections, when they ought to have been debated by the Opposition through the usual channels in the House?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman feels that the business that we are discussing tonight should not have been before the House under the Order in Council procedure, we agree with him. The Minister should withdraw the orders and let us discuss the matter in the manner which has been requested by hon. Members. We should discuss the matter in Committee in the proper way, as legislation should be discussed.

Mr. Budgen: indicated assent.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. If he holds that view, the least that he can do is abstain from voting tonight. He accepts that the orders have been presented to the House in a disgraceful way. I


feel that more Tory Members share that view. I appeal to them: if that is their view, the least that they can do is abstain from voting tonight.

Ms Joan Walley: Is it not the case that the orders should be withdrawn so that we can have a proper debate about the Government's transport policy and see how ports and trust ports fit into the whole issue of transport?

Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, one does not want to move away from discussing the principle of the orders. My colleague has introduced a subject that I do not want to follow.
The orders will create complications and problems. I appeal to Tory Members to listen carefully to what is said, especially by Northern Ireland Members, so that we can put the orders in the proper perspective.

Mr. Budgen: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the official Opposition's position on the matter, because this disgraceful procedure has been supported by both Front Benches for a long time? Is it Labour's position that they will no longer support the use of the Order-in-Council procedure to impose legislation on Northern Ireland without proper discussion?

Mr. O'Brien: Each time we debate an Order in Council in the House or upstairs, we make it clear that the way in which the business is presented is undemocratic.
Tonight, we are debating compulsory orders or enabling legislation relating to privatisation of the port of Belfast. In any language, and in any approach to the matter, one can rightly see that hon. Members who support the Government have not fully realised the consequences of the orders. In that context, the least that the Minister can do is withdraw them and allow us to have a full debate on the issue, allow greater consultation and allow Members of Parliament and the people of Belfast to judge the Government's intentions more openly and freely.
With privatisation, the European grant support which has been so beneficial to the port of Belfast will decrease, if not disappear, as was pointed out earlier. There is also the question whether some of the grant that has been paid should be clawed back. Reference has been made to that in the past, and EC Ministers have said, as has Commissioner Bruce Milian, that there is a possibility of clawing back EC funding. Commissioner Millan also made that clear when we discussed the privatisation of Aldergrove airport. The way in which we judge the orders tonight will only be to the detriment of Belfast, the people of Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland.
As I said, the port of Belfast is a trust port, and the trust port arrangement already ensures that there is fair charging and equal treatment in the allocation of berths and other port facilities. There is a real threat that the ownership of privatised ports will be transferred out of Northern Ireland. The Minister was asked earlier to give an assurance that the ownership of the port of Belfast would not be transferred out of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members ask for that assurance because there is fear that, if foreign investors are allowed to take over the port of Belfast, they will engage in asset-stripping, which will be detrimental to the port and to the Northern Ireland community.
We are also aware that a handsome amount of real estate is attached to the port. That matter must have some bearing on the way in which the port will be disposed of. The

regulations under which trust ports operate place a responsibility of care on the various statutory bodies which control ports on behalf and in the interests of people in the hinterland served by the port—the people of Belfast. The port of Belfast operates in the interests of both the citizens of Belfast and the whole Province of Northern Ireland.
The board of the harbour commissioners is representative of port users, the business community, Belfast city council and employees, through their statutory joint negotiating committee, and representatives of the trade unions in Northern Ireland. In other words, the board is entirely accountable for the operation of the port of Belfast. That accountability will go under privatisation. There will be a lack of democracy and accountability to the people of Northern Ireland. Under privatisation, the only people to whom the board will be responsible are the shareholders.
When one considers the backcloth to the order, one cannot but object to the way in which it has been presented tonight. Hon. Members have expressed anxieties about the staff pension fund. We have seen some examples of what has happened to pension funds in other privatisation schemes. Northern Ireland Members have expressed fears that redundancies and unemployment could result from the asset-stripping that might take place.
We must also consider security. At present, the harbour commissioners organise security at the port. It has been suggested that the security force at the port could be part of a privatised police force. That again would be detrimental to the work of the port.
The people of Northern Ireland and a great proportion of people in other parts of Great Britain are opposed to this arrogant attempt to impose the ideology of the Tory party. They are opposed to this privatisation enabling Bill. I urge the Minister to consider the consequences and think about what has been said by hon. Members who represent constituencies in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. He should withdraw the order tonight. If the order is not withdrawn, we will divide the House and vote against it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): The Labour party has opposed every privatisation measure that has come before the House since 1979.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: May I make some progress, as I have completed one sentence so far?
The Labour party has opposed every privatisation measure which has come before this House since 1979, yet it has no proposals to renationalise any of those industries which have been privatised, apart from having some debate about the future of the water industry.

Mr. William O'Brien: I can assure the House that, if the legislation is not on the statute book before the next general election, the nexrLabour Government will stop the privatisation.

Mr. Smith: That, of course, was not the point I was making. The fact is that the Labour party has no proposals to reverse any of the privatisation measures which the Government have put in place.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall give way in a moment, but I would like to try to complete my preliminary point.
The Government's privatisation programme has been outstandingly successful. Consumers have benefited, employees have benefited and shareholders have benefited. Even the socialist Government of Greece now proposes to privatise part of its telephone industry. Perhaps one day the Labour party will learn that there are advantages to be gained from privatisation.

Mr. Budgen: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when analogous legislation was put through this House in respect of the United Kingdom, it was done through the Bill procedure? Will he please explain, if I am right in saying that, how the people of Northern Ireland can have any proper confidence in the Westminster Parliament if the squalid procedure of Order in Council is used, which is used particularly to deprive them of their proper rights of discussion?

Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, and I certainly would not claim that this was a perfect arrangement for the discussion of legislation. I think you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that time simply will not allow for every measure to be included in primary legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the Minister has to say, and I am sure that many hon. Members also want to hear it.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may not be aware that, when we debated the privatisation of Belfast international airport under similar procedure and allowed three hours for the debate, the whole time was not taken up. That is an interesting indication of the level of interest. We do not rule out primary legislation for Northern Ireland business, but we must make a judgment in each case.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: The difficulty is that we could spend the rest of the debate discussing this issue, and I would not be in a position to reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: May I ask the Minister whether the legislation to which he refers was amendable? Was there any chance—no matter how long we talked on it—that we could have made any difference, or added even a single full stop, to that order?

Mr. Smith: That is my very point. The legislation is not amendable, and I have said that I am sympathetic to the point that has been made. But there we are—that is the situation we are faced with. [Interruption.] I must move on, or I shall not be able to reply to any points raised during the debate.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to what I have said.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way on that subject?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the port of Belfast—

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about procedure, and I find myself in great sympathy with what the Minister said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point for me at all. I would think that the hon. Gentleman's point is intended to refer to why the Minister is not giving way. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I need a ruling on what you know, rather than on what you think , Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Minister to give way or not. He has indicated that he is not giving way.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked about the clawback of European grants. In certain circumstances, grants could be clawed back.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a different point of order.

Mr. Taylor: It concerns your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right to make a decision on what you think, or on what you know?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has made a decision, so it should be right.

Mr. Smith: As I was saying, in certain instances European grants could be clawed back. If they were, the amount clawed back would be reduced from the proceeds that went to the Treasury.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister is now saying that we would receive a sum, half of which would go to the company, and that any clawback would not be pro rata with the company but would be straight from the Treasury's take. Gosh, that is marvellous. This is a double Dutch order.

Mr. Smith: That is the position. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. We have made no decision about the matter. The order is an enabling measure. But he should remember that, if we decide to go ahead with privatisation, bids will be based on the information that I have just given the House.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Smith: No; because I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point, about a management-employee buy-out. I agree with him that, in many ways, that would be the most desirable outcome, which is why the order makes special provision for such a buy-out, providing help to those who want to make a bid at the appropriate time.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was concerned about procedure, should we decide to go ahead with compulsory privatisation. As I said, we have made no decision about that, but if we decided to go ahead, we would want to consider carefully whether the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House. I think that it would probably be debated in response to a prayer.

Mr. Trimble: A few moments ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), the Minister said that he had great sympathy with his view that this matter was being dealt with inadequately. One way in which he could demonstrate that sympathy is by giving a clear undertaking to the House that, in the event of the Government deciding to make an order for privatisation, the matter will be debated in the House in a proper manner. Will he give that clear undertaking now?

Mr. Smith: I do not think that that would be sensible. We are discussing a hypothetical proposition. We shall give the matter careful consideration. Obviously, it depends from where the prayer comes. I think that the matter will be of sufficient importance to warrant a debate. Given that the Government have made no decision about the compulsory privatisation of the port of Belfast, and the fact that we have two years during which we shall want to hear the views of various people, not least the harbour commissioners, it would not be sensible to give such an undertaking now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, as I wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who asked me about the harbour office. The harbour office is a grade A listed building, and it would continue to enjoy that protection even if the port were privatised.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that a procedure that allows for no amendment is a satisfactory way to deal with the privatisation of a port? Why does he carry on in that way if he wants to achieve the support of the people of Northern Ireland for this institution?

Mr. Smith: I have already dealt with my hon. Friend's point. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) was concerned about the environment and areas of special scientific interest. We would want to take that important matter into consideration if we were considering the compulsory privatisation of the port, but that ASSI status will remain, and the area will enjoy the same protection whether the business remains in the public sector or not.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) brought to bear his experience and knowledge of the port of Immingham and the success that the port has enjoyed following privatisation. Many ports in Great Britain have enjoyed similar success following privatisation, which is why I believe that, in certain circumstances, Belfast could benefit similarly.

Ms Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but does he accept that there is a difference between voluntary privatisation of trust ports and compulsory privatisation of trust ports, which cannot be properly debated in this place?

Mr. Smith: I certainly accept that there is a difference, and this is an enabling measure. First, we want to discover the opinion of the Belfast harbour commissioners. We want to find out whether they bring forward their own voluntary scheme in the next two years. It will be open to us, as a matter of law, to consider compulsory privatisation only in two years' time. Many of the important matters mentioned in the debate will be relevant to that consideration.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) acknowledged that some advantages would accrue from privatisation, and I welcome that. Obviously, there are some very strong arguments in favour of privatisation, and some arguments against it have been adduced during the debate.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) was especially worried about the Belfast harbour police. The Belfast harbour commissioners, as the port authority for Belfast harbour, appoint and employ harbour police by virtue of section 79 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The responsibility of the harbour police force is to employ a general policing and security service for the harbour estate, which comprises about 2,000 acres, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Training of recruits in general policing matters is carried out by senior officers of the force. All new recruits are given short-term training by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Training of members of the force in the use of firearms is carried out by a senior harbour police arms instructor, who is a fully qualified instructor, trained by the RUC. Members of the force receive refresher courses in the use of firearms every six months, and each member is issued with written instructions regarding the circumstances in which firearms may be used.

Mr. Mackinlay: What will happen in future?

Mr. Smith: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that in future the same arrangements will prevail. There will be no change in the present arrangements when—if—the port is privatised. If the port is privatised, there will be the same arrangements for the harbour police.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister take the opportunity, as he has the Floor, to explain to those of us who oppose the proposal for privatisation or enabling legislation what he regards as the advantages, if any, that will flow to Belfast harbour commissioners from privatisation?

Mr. Smith: Given the record of ports privatisation in Great Britain, I believe that considerable good news could follow, as business has held up well in those ports in spite of the recession; there has been a big improvement in productivity; financial reconstruction and rationalisation are continuing; employee involvement in the industry has been extended significantly; managers are being given the freedom to manage, and are actively seeking out and developing new business opportunities. The Government have made no decision about the privatisation of Belfast port, but I believe that those are some of the advantages that could accrue if they did decide to proceed.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister take on board the point that the experience in England is not relevant to a position where one will be disadvantaging Belfast significantly with regard to the capital that it can raise compared with its


competitor? What does he say about the position with regard to European development money, where our grant will be cut from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. or less, so we shall be disadvantaged?

Mr. Smith: I dealt with that matter earlier.

It being three hours after the motion had been entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 June].

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 220

Division No. 276]
[10.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Elletson, Harold


Bates, Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hannam, Sir John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick





Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sackville, Tom


Jenkin, Bernard
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mates, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moate, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waterson, Nigel


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Nelson, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Willetts, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Bowen Wells.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainger, Nick
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Garrett, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
George, Bruce


Beggs, Roy
Gerrard, Neil


Bell, Stuart
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Gordon, Mildred


Berry, Roger
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gunnell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hodge, Margaret


Cann, Jamie
Hoey, Kate


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Home Robertson, John


Chidgey, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Church, Judith
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clapham, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cox, Tom
Jowell, Tessa


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, CS)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S.


Dobson, Frank
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Livingstone, Ken





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Radice, Giles


Loyden, Eddie
Randall, Stuart


Lynne, Ms Liz
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


McCartney, Ian
Rendel, David


McCrea, Rev William
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Paul
Trimble, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Vaz, Keith


Olner, William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. John Spellar.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion to be decided at that hour.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Fenchurch Street Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. David Amess: All hon. Members are rightly looking forward to the summer recess. It gives us an opportunity to spend more time with our families. In my case that is initially a novelty. Over the past few years my summer recesses have been ruined by the breaking of a number of political storms. For example, one year the local health authority decided that it would close Basildon and Thurrock accident and emergency unit. Two days before the proposed closure, following a bloody row, we managed to keep the unit open and it is now the finest in the country.
Last year, the post office in Pitsea announced its closure and Tesco decided that it wanted to be the first to have a post office in one of its superstores. The whole matter developed into a fiasco and it was badly handled by both the protagonists.
Tonight, I want to share with the House the fact that on 23 July, for the first time in recent history, a main line station—Fenchurch Street—will close for seven weeks. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed with me that it is appropriate to allow our hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to intervene in the debate, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) could not be here this evening, but I know that he supports the thrust of my argument.
The closure of Fenchurch Street station will undoubtedly have a devastating effect on a huge number of our constituents. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will comment on British Rail's closure arrangements, and also make some general remarks about the programme for the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line.
We all know that travelling in itself is not a pleasurable experience. Certainly it has not been a pleasurable experience for many commuters in our wonderful part of Essex. I must be very careful about how I relay the awful experience that I shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and other hon. Members when we rode in a railway carriage with the present chairman of British Rail. I say that I must be careful because on the last occasion when I mentioned that experience in the House what I said was deliberately misinterpreted by some of our local socialist councillors, who do not commute to London and who also do not work. The journey that we shared with the chairman of British Rail was fairly frivolous: its purpose was to enable the chairman to experience the awful travelling conditions with us, although I am afraid that he did not acquit himself terribly well during the journey.
I make no criticism of the women and men who work for British Rail; they do a magnificent job. What they require is leadership. It is no good senior management of British Rail bleating when we embark on a privatisation programme if they do not accept responsibility and line up behind the Government.
My constituency contains three stations—Pitsea, Laindon and Basildon. In spite of the economic downturn, an increasing number of my constituents now commute to

London; indeed, I think it would be fair to say that Basildon's constituents are the life blood of many firms in London. Sadly, however, their mode of travel means that they are often treated like cattle: the station has poor facilities in terms of toilets, restaurants, seating and access for the disabled.
When people actually get on to the trains, they are squashed together—which is not always a pleasurable experience. At one point the service was so bad that British Rail gave out postcards to people getting off the trains, with a number of boxes for people to tick with the excuse that they could give their employers that day. On the return journey, travellers often found that they had to get off at Horndon on the Hill and walk down the track to their destinations. As if that were not bad enough, there are examples of trains going right through their stations. The line has been an absolute shambles, and the current industrial dispute—which Labour, as ever, supports: whatever the strike, Labour supports it regardless of the merits of the argument—is symptomatic of the problem.
I do not wish to be churlish; I pay tribute to our own rail network, which will offer some sort of service tomorrow. I think it is magnificent that the network has done everything possible to get our commuters to their destination throughout this ridiculous dispute.
In one sense, the LTS—London, Tilbury and Southend—newsline customer letter, issued in spring this year, contained good news. It told us that vital engineering work was being carried out as part of an £83 million resignalling project, including renewal of tracks, overhead electrification and signalling between Fenchurch Street and Limehouse. According to the newsletter, much of the project has been completed owing to work being scheduled to take place at weekends and during the night. It states:
We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers and we have looked at other options. Unfortunately, the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street Station is essential if this part of the work is to be completed in the shortest time.
The date has been specifically chosen to be at a time when many passengers take their holiday and we hope that this advance warning will encourage others to take theirs at the same time.
Well, really. I hardly think that it will go down well with employers in London if everyone in our part of Essex decides to go on holiday and the idea that some of our constituents can take seven weeks off work is ridiculous.
The letter goes on:
We are working closely with London Underground and Great Eastern to provide adequate alternatives but we realise that this closure will cause inconvenience to many of our passengers.
It certainly will cause inconvenience. It is being suggested that people from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will be travelling to Liverpool Street station. I commuted to Liverpool Street for many years. I pay tribute to the Government for the wonderful way in which Liverpool Sreet has been transformed. However, Liverpool Street station is not that near to Fenchurch Street station and that will cause considerable difficulty for many of our constituents.
I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he really believes that LTS has correctly estimated and seriously thought through the enormous disruption and convenience to some 30,000 users of the line. Business these days is tough and making a sustainable profit is not easy. Employers' patience is already well stretched with genuine excuses from our constituents. It is not good enough in this day and age to say, "My train was late." I question whether the closure is necessary or whether the


work could be done in the evening or at the weekend. I hope, for goodness sake, that we will not have the usual fiasco throughout the seven weeks where the work is done for the convenience of the contractors and that they fail to work all day and all night. We must ensure that the work is carried out throughout the entire seven weeks and that it is done to the highest possible quality because a huge amount of public money is being spent on this exercise.
The arrangements during the enforced closure are less than adequate. The press release from LTS dated 16 June is entitled:
Thanks a Million—LTS Rail gives its commuters a million pound loyalty payment.
Who is kidding who? I hardly think that that is a windfall for our constituents. Anyone with any competence in mathematics can work out that a £50 rail voucher divided over seven weeks is not a great deal of money in compensation. Over the years, our constituents deserve better treatment than that. The offer is vague and totally inadequate.
LTS is suggesting that passengers spread their travelling time by travelling a little later or a little earlier than normal so as to avoid overcrowding. Here we go again. For whose convenience is the service operating? It should be operating for the fare-paying passengers. British Rail is not paying people to use the trains. Some of my constituents want to cash in a proportion of their yearly season ticket to cover the seven weeks and use alternative transport. It is totally unacceptable that at the moment British Rail is saying no. I hope that LTS will look again at its arrangements.
LTS says that the station is scheduled to reopen on 11 September. I do not believe that the advertisements have given us sufficient information. I wish that our wonderful River Thames could be used throughout the disruption. However, I inquired today to find that the journey from Tilbury to the City takes three hours, so that is not a sensible proposal. However, I am sure that people could come up with other alternatives.
The Labour party does not support privatisation. Let there be no doubt in the minds of our constituents that the Labour party has always opposed privatisation. My constituents could not care less who runs British Rail as long as the journey is comfortable, delivered at an economic price and the trains get to the stations on time. The hypocrisy of socialists is shown clearly when they say to people on their doorsteps, "Isn't it shocking that your taxes are going up? What we need is more investment in British Rail." Where the devil do they think that such investment will come from?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: No, I will not.
That investment will come from increased taxes. The idea that there is some nest egg where the money will come from is nonsense. Socialists must be honest with the general public. If the general public are not happy with the amount of taxes that is being collected now, they will never be happy with the taxation that the socialists have in mind for us.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that it is a genuine point of order; this is only a half-hour debate.

Mr. Mackinlay: Of course it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? The subject of this debate is exactly the same as the subject that I raised on the Adjournment some time ago. I invited the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to join me for that debate, which was held in the early hours of the morning. He did not support me; I sat alone with the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I suspected, that is not a genuine point of order but a misuse of the House's time and it is unfair on the hon. Member who has the half-hour Adjournment debate.

Mr. Amess: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is wrong. I phoned the Table Office at 4.30 am, but the debate had been held earlier. I am afraid that the days of honourable behaviour seem to be out of fashion. [Interruption.]
Can my right hon. Friend tell us who the bidders are for the Fenchurch Street line, what service they are offering managers and the general public and how precisely the privatisation programme will be carried out? [Interruption.] Socialists could not care less about the rail service. They are interested only in how people vote, which is why they tried to target my constituency in the 1992 election. It did not work then, and I intend to ensure that it does not work next time.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: No, I will not.
Socialists spread their poison by telling the general public that services will deteriorate and that fares will rocket. It is a joke to suggest that services will deteriorate. They say that there will not be an off-peak service and that people will lose their travel cards and their concessionary fares. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some answers and make this a happy summer recess for everyone and ensure that our constituents get a better deal than the one announced by London, Tilbury and Southend.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate my hon. and dear Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on initiating a debate on a matter that concerns so many of our constituents—trying to ensure that they get a fair deal from British Rail while it still exists. Thank goodness it is now being phased out.
I should like to say how much I appreciate the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister. We know that he is here on duty and how much he cares about the Fenchurch Street line—the misery line—which has been one of the disgraces of our public railway service for many years and on which our constituents have experienced the misery of travelling. Not only have signals failed over and again but carriages have been packed. We even had a dead sheep on the line that had not been removed, which gave new meaning to the phrase, "travelling like cattle".
I congratulate the Government on their recent £50 million investment in reviving signals on the line. They have done the best that they can in a hopeless situation. As we have now had the good sense to bring in the private


sector, I look forward, as I have for many years, to hearing the good news of the company that is likely to get to run our railway. Nobody could possibly run it more inefficiently and ineffectively than British Rail. I congratulate and support my hon. Friend, and look forward with great pleasure to what the Minister is to tell us.

Dr. Robert Spink: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) should speak in the debate? There are only 12 minutes of it left.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): indicated assent.

Dr. Spink: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As well as the resignalling project—I congratulate the Government on providing the funds for that £100 million project—two further advances are needed. One is new rolling stock, and 25 of the 317 sliding-door trains will cascade down from the great northern line to our line at the end of 1995. That will be a great advantage to all our constituents.
The other great change needed is an improvement in the management and worker culture, methods and motivation on our line. That will come through the franchise arrangements, which I strongly welcome. I understand that the new management team of LTS Rail, headed by Chris Kinchin-Smith, has now formally registered its intention to bid for the franchise, with employee participation.
I welcome that, but I tell those people that over the coming months we shall watch most carefully developments in the culture, attitudes and motivation of managers and employees on the line. We shall watch especially carefully the way in which they handle the resignalling project. I hope that they will take on board the points so eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on the great fight that he is putting up for Basildon and for rail passengers—[Interruption.]—despite the harassment from the Opposition, which seems quite out of place.
I want to make two points. First, we are delighted that the resignalling is going ahead. The line has been starved of investment and it is great that we are to get new signalling, especially as some of the signalling for Fenchurch Street is a little older than me. New signalling represents a big step forward.
Secondly, it must be said that, although the line has been dreadful, there has been a dramatic improvement since Chris Kinchin-Smith and his predecessor took over. My constituents feel that things are getting much better.
I also want to ask two questions. First, when on earth will the Government tell us what is the profit or loss on the Fenchurch Street line? I have been asking that question for years, and the Minister says that he will tell me when the time is ripe. That is rather like the Government saying that they will tell me when we shall reform the common agricultural policy. I should like to know the figures.
Secondly, could the Minister tell us what the benefits of privatisation will be? Unlike the young enthusiasts, as one of the older Members, I have always had some doubts in my mind. However, as we shall be one of the first lines to be privatised, we shall probably derive some bonuses.
The people of Southend have had a bad time. Things are getting a bit better now, but we should like to know what the glorious opportunities ahead are. Will we get cheaper fares? That would be great. Will we get newer trains? That would be great too. If the Minister would say when the time will be ripe to tell us the actual financial position of the Fenchurch Street line, I should be more than grateful. Of course, we pay tribute to the huge interest that he has taken in the line.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I pay tribute to my colleagues, not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who led them, but to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for their continued interest in the future of the line.
Clearly the resignalling scheme is essential; it will cost about £100 million. The signalling system is worn out, and the reason for 20 per cent. of the faults on the line is that system's ineffectiveness. Everyone welcomes the resignalling.
It is a radical solution to close the station for seven weeks, but I have looked into the question carefully and sought advice from the railway experts, especially those at Railtrack, and I am convinced that closure for seven weeks, although a great burden upon my hon. Friends' constituents, is better than the alternative, which could well be three or more years of part-time working at nights and weekends. That is no way to run a railway. Indeed, I had ministerial responsibility for the docklands light railway, and we all learnt something from that about the ability to run a railway and to improve the infrastructure. Seven weeks is a relatively short period, and I believe that it represents the correct way forward, bearing in mind that the signal box has to be removed, the track realigned at the station and all the old signalling removed.
Are the alternatives capable of handling the 25,000 to 30,000 commuters? I believe so, especially for those from Laindon, Basildon and Pitsea. I have looked into the alternatives. They include London, Tilbury and Southend trains crossing over to the Great Eastern line and running into Liverpool Street. We believe that some passengers will take that option—perhaps a half. Some trains will run through to Barking and passengers will be able to get off at either Upminster or Barking. Their tickets will be valid on the underground, so they can take the District line services into Tower Hill, Aldgate East and Liverpool Street. There will be a shuttle rail service from Upminster to Romford on the Great Eastern line and more trains will stop at Romford on the Great Eastern Line. Finally, there will be buses to take passengers who prefer to get on the Great Eastern line directly. I can confirm that LTS season tickets will be valid on the buses and on the underground, so there will be no additional payments.
I can also tell the House that Ministers will watch developments in July, August and September. There will be duty Ministers, including myself, in the Department. If there are complaints from the travelling public or from


Members of Parliament, we shall pay immediate attention to them. I can also tell my hon. Friends that we shall ensure that there is a free telephone line for passengers to ask about the availability of alternative services and to complain if the alternative services are not available. I understand that leaflets for passengers will be published shortly. Indeed, there will be an exhibition at Fenchurch Street this Friday.
On franchising, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in particular, let me describe the chronology of events and then go on to say what I think the advantages are. We intend that the LTS line should be in the first group of franchises. The intention is that it will be franchised by the end of next year. The pre-qualification procedure will commence at the end of 1994 and the tender documentation will go out to the potential franchisees some time in the spring of next year. I shall then be able to answer my hon. Friend's question because we shall publish the financial data on that line and the other five lines in the first six on or about 1 April 1995.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: I shall not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have only a few minutes.
That data will be made available to the House in as much detail as possible because it is a matter of great interest not only to my hon. Friends but to others. I believe that with the line resignalled—we expect that to be completed by next April—and with new modern rolling stock, which will not replace all the rolling stock on the line but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly said, will improve the existing stock—a process that I hope will continue through franchising—we shall have a line that, when it is franchised, will be a first-class performer.
There is interest, and not only from the existing management group. I pay tribute to what the management have achieved. Indeed, I dissociate myself from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon about the chairman of British Rail. I understand his comments, but I pay tribute to what the chairman, other senior managers and, in particular, the management of the LTS line have achieved. I have looked up the figures for punctuality. We have gone from 78.6 per cent. in 1991, to 89.7 per cent. in 1992 and to 92.8 per cent. in 1993. That is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind that we do not yet have the fruits of fresh investment in the line. That is a tribute to the management and staff of the line, together with the interest taken by my hon. Friends and by the Department of Transport. They have encouraged and drawn to the attention of the British Rail management the need to improve services. That is a real improvement in punctuality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked

what the advantages are and why we are going through the whole process. We have debated the matter many times before. There are three main advantages. The first is that we shall bring additional private sector capital on to the railways. When the franchise is let, it will have access to private sector capital. That will undoubtedly produce an improvement in investment. It will not happen overnight, but we shall see improvements in the facilities at stations, the improvement of car parking and better information systems available to the travelling public because we shall be freed from Treasury restraint and from the Department's budget.
Secondly, we shall have a management system delegated to the management and the owners of the line. The present management of the LTS line will be involved in future in running the line, whoever is the owner of the franchise company. I very much hope that the present management group will have an equity interest—I hope, a significant equity interest—in the franchise company. I hope that that hope turns out to be reality. However, we want other companies to participate in the franchising process and I am quite confident that that will happen.
I forecast that we shall also get a reduction in fares on the line—not necessarily in the peak period, that would be too much to ask, but for off-peak services, excursion service and contracted services.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me, but I hope that he will forgive me if I respond to the debate. I forecast that we will get those reductions in fares, which will bring a wider benefit to the travelling public. I invite my hon. Friends to visit the line for the ninth time as and when we have franchising.
I believe that, when it is franchised, "the misery line", as it has been depicted in the past, will turn out to mean that the London, Tilbury to Southend line, as a privatised line, will be one of the most successful lines serving the London terminuses. I repeat the commitment that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon that, during the summer and the seven weeks of inconvenience and disruption, which I believe is sadly inevitable in the best interests of the railway to get the job done quickly, Ministers at the Department of Transport will monitor the situation. We want as few as possible of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon to be inconvenienced. I am quite certain that, with co-operation, with the determination of Railtrack and the management of the London, Tilbury to Southend line, the job will be done properly and quickly and will be completed on time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o 'clock.